Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

ROAD ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY VEHICLES AND HORSES.

Address for Return,
showing the number of accidents resulting in death or personal injury known by the police to have been caused by vehicles and horses in streets, roads, or public places, and the number of persons killed or injured by such accidents in Great Britain during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1932 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 79, of Session 1931–32)."—[Mr. Hacking.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CHINA.

Mr. NUNN: 23.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has had a recent report on trading conditions in the Chinese province of Szechuan; what are the causes of the falling off of the valuable trade with that province; and whether there is any prospect of its recovery?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The latest report upon trading conditions in the province of Szechuan was received in the Department of Overseas Trade in November, 1932. The falling off of trade with that province is mainly due to political and other internal conditions within the province. There is also a tendency for the trade of the neighbouring province of Kweichow to avoid the route through the province of Szechuan and to enter from the South. I fear there is
little immediate prospect of the recovery of trade under existing conditions.

Mr. NUNN: Is the political unrest referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the invasion of Szechuan last January by 60,000 Communist troops from Shensi; and is it necessary for goods passing through Szechuan to pay at least 14 local charges in Chungking, the gate of Szechuan?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: If my hon. Friend puts down those specific questions, I will be glad to give him answers.

Mr. BURNETT: 24.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can account for the fact that exports of German electrical machinery to China were nearly trebled last year while British exports declined?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Several factors exist which may account for this, and I have therefore instituted special inquiries.

JAPANESE MANUFACTURES (IMPORTS, INDIA).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India what steps the Government of India propose to take with a view to prohibiting the dumping of Japanese manufactures in India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I am not in a position to make any statement.

Mr. DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he may be in a position to make a statement on this subject?

Sir S. HOARE: I could not give the hon. Member a date.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India what percentage of the imports into India came from the United Kingdom and what percentage of the exports from India went to the United Kingdom in 1932; and, for comparison, the corresponding percentages in 1931 and 1913?

Sir S. HOARE: As the reply contains a number of figures, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Since figures for the year 1913 are not available, comparative figures of Indian trade with the United Kingdom, expressed as percentages of total imports and exports respectively, for the years ending 31st March, 1932,1931, and 1914 are given.

Imports of Merchandise into British India.






1931–32.
1930–31.
1913–14.


From United Kingdom
…
…
…
35.4
37.2
64.2


Exports of Indian Merchandise from India.


To United Kingdom
…
…
…
27.9
23.5
23.4

CEYLON (INDIAN COTTON GOODS).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India what steps have been taken by the Government of India to arrange that preference is given by the Ceylon State Council to Indian cotton goods?

Sir S. HOARE: The matter is under the consideration of the Government of India.

SINGAPORE (EMPIRE SHOPPING WEEK),

Mr. HANNON: 25.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if his attention has been called to the proposed organisation of an Empire shopping week at Singapore in May; and if any steps will be taken to secure a representation suitable to Malayan consumption during the exhibition?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Trade Commissioner at Singapore, who also represents the Department of Overseas Trade in Malaya, and has a close knowledge of that market, has accepted the chairmanship of the committee formed to organise, as part of the programme, an exhibition of British goods, from the 24th to 30th May.

Mr. HANNON: Will they receive every possible assistance from the Overseas Trade Department on this side?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir.

RUSSIAN LINEN PIECE GOODS (IMPORTS).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the dumping of linen piece goods by Russia, in this country; and what action he intends to take?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: My attention has not previously been directed to the import of linen piece-goods from the Soviet Union. As regards the latter part of the question, I am not at present in a position to make any statement.

FOREIGN FILM PRODUCERS (TAXATION ON REMITTANCES, CANADA).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is aware that the Canadian Government has imposed a 12½ per cent. tax on all sums remitted to foreign film producers abroad; and whether the British Government is making any representations against this discriminatory treatment?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I have not received any information on this subject, but am making inquiries.

FINLAND (BRITISH SHOPPING WEEK).

Mr. GLOSSOP (for Mr. RUTHERFORD): 26.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he has any information regarding the proposed British shopping week in Finland during the summer; and what steps his Department is taking to make the project known in commercial circles in this country?

Lieut. Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir. It has been decided to hold a British shopping week in Finland during the first week in September. The project, which has the sympathy of the Finnish Government, is being organised by the Finnish British Trade Association, with the help of the British Legation, Helsingfors, and all possible steps will be taken by the Department of Overseas Trade to encourage United Kingdom manufacturers to support the proposal. His Royal Highness
the Prince of Wales has graciously consented to be a patron, and I have been informed by His Majesty's Minister at Helsingfors that the President of the Finnish Republic has also conferred the favour of his patronage.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

RAILWAY APPRENTICES (TRAINING, ENGLAND).

Mr. McENTEE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will take steps to see that, the Government of India make it a condition of their purchase of railway stores and material in England that all fully qualified boys at Jamalpur are provided with facilities for further training in England?

Sir S. HOARE: This is a matter within the discretion of the Government of India. So far as I am aware, no difficulties have hitherto been experienced by the High Commissioner for India in obtaining training in this country for the apprentices in question. The training required is mainly to be obtained on the railways, and the British railway companies have been consistently most helpful.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for India what proportion of the fully qualified boys now being trained for railway service at Jamalpur are to be sent to England this year for further training in railway workshops?

Sir S. HOARE: The High Commissioner for India has so far been asked by the Government of India to arrange practical training for six of these apprentices in this country.

ARMY MEDICAL SERVICES.

Mr. McENTEE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India will consider the advisability of implementing the recommendation of the Army retrenchment advisory committee with regard to the abolition of separate medical services and military hospitals for Indian and European troops in India?

Sir S. HOARE: The Government of India's views have been stated in the explanatory note on the medical services
on page 95 of the Defence Budget Estimates for 1933–34. I am sending the hon. Member an extract.

MR. SLIBHAS CHANDRA BOSE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India the reason why Mr. Subhas Chandra Bose's passport forbids his entrance into the United Kingdom and Germany; whether the Government of India have received any communication from the German Government on the matter; and for what reasons this exclusion has been made?

Sir S. HOARE: Mr. Subhas Bose was detained as a State prisoner in India under Regulation III of 1818 and has been permitted to come to Europe solely on grounds of health. He has been given facilities to visit such European countries as were considered necessary for the purposes of treatment and for consulting specialists, but in view of his previous activities it was decided that he could not be granted unrestricted freedom of travel. There is no question of any communication from a foreign Government.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a regulation made in 1818 ought to cover this case when, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, the visit would be one based upon Mr. Bose's desire to improve his health?

Sir S. HOARE: I think on the whole the Government of India have treated this man in a very fair manner. They gave him every facility for his treatment in Europe, but, in view of his past record, we cannot give him unrestricted facilities to travel wherever he wishes to go.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the only desire of Mr. Bose is to improve his health, does he not think permission might be granted for him to visit either Germany or this country?

Sir S. HOARE: No. The hon. Member will see that we have given permission for him to have treatment in those centres in Europe where he can get that treatment. As far as we know, the treatment that he requires he wilt get in the cities to which he is going.

ADDITIONAL POLICE, KANARA DISTRICT, BOMBAY.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that for one year, beginning from 1st March, 1933, the Government has employed an additional police force, consisting of one inspector, 13 head constables, and 49 constables, at a total cost of Rs.33,792, in the Kanara district, the poorest district in the Bombay Presidency, and that a punitive tax is being assessed on all the inhabitants of this district from which. Government servants are exempt; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the poverty of this district, and the inability of the inhabitants to pay such a heavy additional tax, and take steps for their relief?

Sir S. HOARE: In order to put an end to a series of acts of lawlessness connected with agitation against the payment of land revenue, a force of 63 additional police has been quartered in two Talukas of the Kanara district. The cost will be recovered in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of the Police Act, 1861, and exemption from such liability has not been confined to Government servants. I am not prepared to interfere with the discretion of the local Government in the matter.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that all the residents in this affected area ought to be penalised because of indiscretions on the part of a few?

Sir S. HOARE: I am prepared to leave a question of that kind to the local Government.

OTTAWA AGREEMENTS (NEWSPRINT).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India what steps the Government of India propose to take for the refund of the amounts collected from importers of newsprint in India owing to the erroneous inclusion of newsprint in the tariff schedule of the Ottawa Agreement?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no information.

CIVIL SERVICE (INDIANISATION).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 11.
asked the Secretary of State fur India what preparations the Government of India are making towards the gradual Indianisation of the foreign and political Departments
of the Government of India, especially in the responsible grades, so that Indians may have the training necessary for ultimately taking over these Departments?

Sir S. HOARE: The Government of India are pursuing their policy of introducing a substantial Indian element into their foreign and political Department.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the Civil Service is open to every Indian who has the capabilities to pass the examination?

Sir S. HOARE: I should like to give the hon. Member a detailed answer, if he would put that question down. Speaking generally, recruitment is made by proportions between European and Indian candidates, but there is a very open career, as the hon. Gentleman implies in his question, to Indian candidates.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for India the number of British officers of the All-India Services who have retired on proportionate pension in the years 19)9 to 1932, inclusive?

Sir S. HOARE: With my Noble Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures asked for. But I would draw the attention of my Noble Friend to the answer which I gave in reply to her question on the 20th March, with regard to the dates on which the proportionate pension scheme came into force.

Following are the figures:

Number of British officers of the All-India Services who have retired on proportionate pension in each of the years 1921 to 1932 inclusive.

1921 (November and December)
5


1922
190


1923
94


1924
54


1925
18


1926
25


1927
34


1928
22


1929
30


1930
36


1931
38


1932
12


Total
558

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for India the number of Europeans in the Indian Civil Service and the Indian police, respectively, in 1928 and at the present time; and what estimate is made of the number that will remain in five years' time provided that the present rate of Indianisation continues?

Sir S. HOARE: On the 1st January, 1928, there were 922 Europeans in the Indian Civil Service, and 569 in the Indian Police; the corresponding figures on the 1st January, 1932 (the latest date for which particulars are available) were 843 and 528. Provided that the present rate of Indianisation continues, there should on the basis of the present cadres be about 670 Europeans in the Indian Civil Service and about 460 in the Indian Police on the 1st January, 1938.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not possible to check the speed of this Indianisation, in view of the fact that the efficiency of the Services must certainly suffer before the Statutory Commission which it is proposed to set up in five years time?

Sir S. HOARE: My hon. and gallant Friend raises a very big question in a supplementary question, which I would rather deal with in debate.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Is there any experience which would give colour to the allegation of inefficiency?

Sir S. HOARE: No. I can certainly say that, speaking generally, the Indian Services are very efficient.

AIR SERVICES (CO-OPERATION).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether arrangements have now been made for co-operation by the Indian Government in the commencement and maintenance of an air route from Great Britain to the Far East; and, if not, whether he can state what are the reasons for delay in this matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): Arrangements are proceeding satisfactorily, and I hope that an announcement on the subject may soon be possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH SUBJECTS (ARRESTS).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs if he has any further statement to make regarding the trial of British engineers in Russia; and whether any definite charges have yet been made against them?

Sir A. KNOX: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen His Majesty's Ambassador to Moscow; and what decision has been come to regarding steps to be taken to secure the release of the British engineers imprisoned in Soviet Russia?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now inform the House as to the information received from the British Ambassador on his return from Moscow, with regard to the Soviet Government's reply to the representations which he has made for the release of the British citizens who have been imprisoned; and whether he can furnish the House with specific details of the charges made against them?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): The House will recall that I stated on Thursday last that I had requested our Ambassador in Moscow to return home immediately for consultation. Sir Esmond Ovey arrived on Sunday, and we have been in close consultation with him since. The Government have reached a decision which will be announced by the Prime Minister in reply to a question on business this afternoon. I would therefore ask my hon. Friends to await the Prime Minister's statement.

Mr. LEWIS: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to the number of British subjects at present in Russia?

Sir J. SIMON: British subjects who go to Russia are not compelled to register with British Consulates in that country though it is probable that most of them do so. Consular records show that since the year 1927 about 170 persons have been so registered, but I have no information as to how many of them have since left Soviet Russia. Apart from British subjects who have entered Russia since the establishment of the Soviet regime, there are at the present time in the Soviet Union about 130 British subjects who have resided in that country since before the revolution and who, being now old or
infirm, are wholly or partially dependent on relief administered by the British Subjects in Russia Relief Association.

Mr. LEWIS: Will my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of making arrangements for British subjects in Russia to keep in close touch with the Embassy?

Sir J. SIMON: As I have said, I think most British subjects who are in Russia do in fact communicate with the British Consulate, and it is undoubtedly very proper that they should do so, because it is not the duty of the British diplomatic representatives there to keep in touch with them.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that on the average British subjects are well treated in Russia?

CHINA-MONGOLIAN BORDER (CUSTOMS CONTROL).

Mr. NUNN: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that Soviet Russia has taken control of the customs on the China-Mongolian border; if so, by what treaty Soviet Russia claims this right; and whether the former valuable trade between Tientsin and North-West China has been diminished in consequence?

Sir J. SIMON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The remainder of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. NUNN: Is it not a fact that the Russian people have been virtually controlling Mongolia for something like five or six years and are now building railways there and training troops, and that the area is actually known as the Soviet Socialist Republic of Mongolia?

Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member's question refers to taking control of the customs. My answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and therefore the answer to the supplementary question cannot arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (BRITISH OFFICERS' CAPTURE).

Mr. NUNN: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has
any information concerning the boarding of the British steamship "Nanchang," on 29th March, by Chinese pirates off the mouth of the Liao river; and what steps are being taken to rescue the four British officers of the vessel who have been kidnapped?

Sir J. SIMON: A report has been received from His Majesty's Minister at Peking, according to which the steamer "Nanchang," of the China Navigation Company, was attacked at noon on the 29th March by a large force of pirates, while at anchor off the mouth of the Liao river. The pirates carried off four subordinate British officers, and made away up river. His Majesty's sloop "Cornflower" at once proceeded to Newchwang, and an officer attached to His Majesty's Legation at Peking was also sent there. Urgent representations were made to the local authorities and to the Japanese Government; and all possible steps are, I am informed, being taken by the land and river police in concert with the Manchurian coastguards. Seaplanes and a number of junks are being employed to carry on the search. The Japanese Government have instructed their subordinate authorities to afford all possible assistance.

Major HILLS: Have the Foreign Office any idea where these unfortunate British officers have been carried off to?

Sir J. SIMON: I have no more knowledge than that they have been carried off by a force of pirates who have made their way up the river.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORTS (RUSSIA).

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to how many British subjects passports have been issued in the last 12 months to go to Russia?

Sir J. SIMON: Since March, 1930, the general practice has been adopted of making the passports of intending travellers to Europe valid for "all countries in Europe, including the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and Turkey." The majority of Foreign Office passports issued since that date have been so endorsed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRUG TRAFFIC.

Mr. HANNON: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the publication of the annual report for the year 1932 of the Central Narcotics Intelligence Bureau, presented to the Egyptian Government by Russell Pasha, in which co-operation among European nations for the suppression of the drug traffic trade is emphasised; if His Majesty's Government intend to ratify the convention agreed at Geneva in 1931 for the limitation of the manufacture of narcotics; what other States have decided to sign the convention; and if steps will be taken through diplomatic channels to secure that they will conform to it?

Sir J. SIMON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, the ratification in respect of the United Kingdom was despatched to the Secretary-General of the League on the 30th March. As regards the third part of the question, I presume that my hon. Friend intends to inquire what other States have decided to ratify the convention. I am not in a position to give any precise information on this point but I anticipate that sufficient ratifications will have been received to enable the convention to be brought into force by the 13th July, 1933. As regards the last part of the question, I see no reason to anticipate the failure of any party to the convention to conform to its provisions.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that one particular State has caused great difficulty in arriving at a unanimous agreement?

Sir J. SIMON: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government propose to introduce legislation to ratify the proposals of the anti-drug convention; and, if so, when the Bill is expected to be introduced?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The Dangerous Drugs Act, 1932, was passed to give effect to the convention of 1931, to which I presume
the hon. Member refers, and no further legislation for this purpose is required.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the Minister consider that the Act gives him all the power that he requires?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK REORGANISATION SCHEME.

Viscount LYMINGTON: 27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the Agricultural Marketing Bill makes no provision for the establishment of a central dairymen's board and a joint milk council with statutory powers, as recommended in the Report of the Reorganisation Commission for Milk, the Government intend to reject that part of the commission's recommendations?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): The recommendations of the Milk Reorganisation Commission for the establishment of a statutory dairymen's board and joint milk council, which raise important questions of principle, have received the Government's careful consideration. While the Government is not prepared to introduce the special legislation which I am advised would be required fully to carry out these recommendations, provision has been made in Clause 11 of the Agricultural Marketing Bill which would enable action to be taken in the direction of consultation, and if necessary arbitration, between the interests concerned.

Viscount LYMINGTON: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that perhaps nothing could more fortify the confidence of the public in the milk reorganisation scheme than a body of this kind?

Major ELLIOT: I have said that under Clause 11 these particular requirements will be met.

POTATOES.

Mr. RONALD ROSS: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the price of main-crop potatoes is at present 1s. 4½d. per cwt. compared with 6s. 4d. per cwt. at a corresponding period last year, and that potatoes to the value of £5,908,838 were imported into the United Kingdom during 1932; and what steps he proposes to take in order to preserve this branch of agriculture?

Major ELLIOT: I am aware that the prices ruling for home-grown main-crop potatoes are very low in comparison with those obtained in March, 1932, when prices were high. I would point out, however, that the 1932 main crop was more than sufficient for requirements, whereas in 1931 there was a very short crop. Of the imports in 1932, which were valued at nearly £6,000,000, practically the whole arrived before the home main crop was lifted, and a substantial portion consisted of early potatoes. As regards the last part of the question, a scheme for regulating the marketing of potatoes produced in Great Britain has recently been submitted under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself, and is receiving consideration.

Mr. HANNON: Has not the time come when the Ministry of Agriculture in this country should make provisions so that our potato industry can supply our own market and keep out the foreigner?

MEAT AND POULTRY (MARKING).

Captain HEILGERS: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the inquiry into the marking of imported meat and poultry has been postponed; and if so, how long a postponement is contemplated?

Major ELLIOT: Arrangements were made to continue this inquiry to-day, but owing to the inability of all the interested parties to attend due to unforeseen circumstances, it was found necessary to cancel the arrangements. I understand that the proceedings will be resumed at the earliest practicable date. My hon. and gallant Friend may like to know that the committee has already submitted a report on the marking of imported bacon and ham.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (CHANCED NUMBERS).

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: 31.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inconvenience and expense caused to telephone subscribers by the enforced change in their number when the exchange passes over to the automatic system; whether he has received any representations on this subject; and whether he will take any steps to remove this grievance?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am aware of the inconvenience which a change of telephone number may involve, but I regret that for technical reasons an alteration in the numbers of some subscribers is inevitable on the conversion of an exchange to automatic working. Such changes are kept to a minimum, and every effort is made to reduce the inconvenience by giving adequate notice of the impending change, and by arranging for calls from another area made to the old number to be diverted to the new number.

CABLE-ROOM DEPARTMENT (REDUNDANT STAFF).

Major LEIGHTON: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the instructions issued to the effect that redundant staff of the cable room department of the Post Office cannot be considered for transfer to other positions in the Post Office or in the Civil Service if they are over 30 years of age, he is making any arrangement for those ex-service members of the staff who are necessarily over 30 years of age?

Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware that any such instructions have been issued. On the question of reducing the redundancy of staff in the cable-room, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden) on the 6th of March.

Major LEIGHTON: May I ask if any individuals have applied for transfer and have been informed that they cannot be transferred owing to the fact that they are over age?

Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of that fact; it is not in accordance with the facts given me.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' LOANS).

Major NATHAN: 35.
asked the Minister of Health bow many applications he has received from local authorities in England and Wales since let October, 1932, for the sanction of loans in connection with the construction of working-class houses without State assistance; and how many of such applications he has approved and rejected, respectively, to this date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend regrets that information in the form desired by the hon. Member is not available. The number of unsubsidised houses covered by sanctions given during the period mentioned is 1,208.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH (MEAT) REGULATIONS (NORFOLK).

Mr. THOMAS COOK: 38.
asked the Minister of Health if his Department has received reports of abuse of the Public Health (Meat) Regulations, 1924; and whether the regulations are being adhered to in the county of Norfolk?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend assumes that the reference is to the question of the occasional slaughter of animals on unregistered and unlicensed premises, and he has received a number of letters on this subject. It is primarily for the Local Authorities to determine to what extent such slaughtering is permissible and no specific allegations have been brought to his notice of failure by the local authorities in Norfolk to discharge their duties in this respect.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (SEASONAL WORKERS).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is his intention to include in the forthcoming Bill dealing with unemployment insurance any proposals providing more satisfactory arrangements for seasonal workers in respect of unemployment benefit?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I cannot anticipate the propossals of the Bill, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the question of seasonal workers will not be overlooked.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very grave discontent that exists among classes of seasonal workers in seaside resorts?

Oral Answers to Questions — WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade
whether he can now state whether the question of shipping subsidies will be raised and fully discussed at the forthcoming World Economic Conference?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave on the 14th February to the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Rankin).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he is able to inform the House as to the progress which has been made for the discussion of the American debt settlement and for the meeting of the World Economic Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I am not at present in a position to make any further statement on these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (JEWISH IMMIGRATION).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the measures taken against Jews in Germany, he will relax the restriction on emigration into Palestine for the benefit of refugees?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The administration of the Immigration Law of Palestine is a matter within the discretion of the High Commissioner. It is open to the Palestine Executive of the Jewish Agency to make any representations on the subject which they may wish to the High Commissioner, who can be depended upon to give full consideration to such representations; but there can be no question of departing from the principle, which has been consistently followed, that immigration into Palestine must be governed by the economic absorptive capacity of the country.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Did the right hon. Gentleman see what "Le Temps" said about England last Saturday, and is he not ashamed to allow England to fall behind France and Czechoslovakia in ordinary humanity?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I did not see the paper to which my right hon. and gallant Friend refers, but I am quite sure that no charge can be sustained that this country stands behind any other country in its humanity.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In that case is there a chance that we may offer a refuge to the persecuted in Germany?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the right hon. and gallant Member will look at the figures of immigration into Palestine for the last year and compare them with the year before, he will see that a very large increase was made in the numbers of immigrants who were taken.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, but most of these people are professional people who have lost any chance of livelihood, and is there no chance of their being admitted?

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: Ought we not to make a special effort in present circumstances, and will the right hon. Gentleman not consider calling together a committee of this House to consider the matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think these are two perfectly distinct questions. This is a matter of immigration into Palestine, and it has always been the policy followed by the mandatory Power—and no other policy could possibly be pursued in Palestine in carrying out the idea of a national home—that the economic conditions of the country must govern the number of immigrants.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the general rules about permanent immigration will prevent Palestine being available now as an asylum for the Jews?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think I have stated quite plainly what are the absolute commitments of this country as between the Arabs and Jews in that country, and I am sure that nothing but disaster could follow from not fully carrying out the mandate in that spirit.

Mr. MAXTON: What about temporary arrangements?

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN URBAN ESTATES (DEVELOPMENT).

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now announce the terms of reference and composition of the proposed standing committee to advise the Commissioners of Crown Lands in connection with the development of the Crown's urban property?

The PRIME MINISTER: The terms of reference are:
To advise the Commissioners of Crown Lands on questions remitted to them by the Commissioners relating to the development of the Crown's urban estates, with particular reference to aesthetic and similar considerations of public interest.
It will be understood that it is open to the committee, if they so wish, to offer advice on any matters of public interest, affecting property administered by the Commissioners of Crown Lands, other than those arising on cases formally remitted to them.
The committee has been constituted as follows:

Lord Gorell, C.B.E., M.C. (chairman).
Lord Jessel, C.B., C.M.G.
Mr. Frank Pick.
Sir Raymond Unwin, F.R.I.B.A.
Sir John Oakley, G.B.E.
Mr. E. V. Lucas, C.H.
The appointments are for a period of four years; members will be eligible for reappointment. The committee can co-opt ad hoc for purposes of consultation, and they are also being asked to co-opt representatives of local government bodies specially concerned with any individual project.
Arrangements will be made, before action is taken on any question which has been remitted to the committee, to make public their recommendations. The full reports will be regarded as confidential.
As was explained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture during the course of the Debate on the 8th February, the appointment of this committee does not in any way affect the arrangements as regards the Royal Fine Art Commission, whose advice on questions within their sphere will continue to be sought as heretofore.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is it understood that the Minister will not take action with regard to any of the important buildings on the Crown Lands estates without taking the opinion of the committee on them first? It is not quite clear from the answer that he is under an obligation to consult the committee in important matters.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the terms of reference will make that point
quite clear. I have no doubt my right hon. Friend will agree that it is so when he has the terms of reference before him.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Will the members of the committee be paid a salary?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask who it is that gets the income from the Crown lands?

The PRIME MINISTER: The State.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (SUPPLIES, LIVERPOOL).

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 47.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the acceptance by the Liverpool education committee of foreign tenders for matches and pencils; and whether he will address a circular to education committees with regard to their policy in these matters?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): My Noble Friend's attention has been drawn to the references to this matter which have appeared in the Press. All local authorities have been circularised, on more than one occasion, and urged to purchase British goods and materials wherever it is reasonably practicable to do so. My Noble Friend has no reason to think that local education authorities generally are not well aware of the wishes of His Majesty's Government in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIREARMS (SURRENDER).

Mr. MACLEAN: 49.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider taking any steps to induce owners of firearms to surrender them to the police authorities; and whether he is prepared to grant immunity from prosecution to those who hold no licence for possessing firearms as an incentive to the surrender of such weapons?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The enforcement of the Firearms Act, 1920, is a matter for the chief officers of police. As regards the first part of the question, I understand that in the Metropolitan Police district the Commissioner of Police has recently issued a notice to holders of firearms
certificates suggesting that persons who did not require to retain their firearms should consider surrendering them, with any ammunition, to the police. As regards the second part of the question, I have no power to grant immunity from prosecution on the lines suggested. If, however, any persons are in possession of firearms without lawful authority, they will be well advised to approach the police in the matter without delay, and I have no doubt that chief officers of police will be ready to deal sympathetically with persons who, having omitted to observe the law in this regard, take an early opportunity of surrendering any firearms and ammunition in their possession.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider recommending those suggestions to the local authorities and the police authorities, as they will probably assist in the surrendering of the weapons?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am sending a copy of this answer to the chief constables, in order to bring the matter to their attention.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking steps to obtain powers to grant the immunity, because there are many more revolvers in the hands of the public than the authorities believe?

Mr. LEVY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a revision of the licences, with a view to cancellation in the case of people who are not justified in having firearms in their possession?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (ENLISTMENTS).

Mr. TINKER: 48.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will give the figures of enlistment of persons under 18 years of age who have been discharged through misstatement of age for the years 1929–30 and 1931–32?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): During the recruiting years ended 30th September, 1930, and 30th September, 1932, the numbers of recruits under 18 years of age who were discharged for having made a misstatement as to age on attestation were 575 and 416 respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPLOSION, MITCHAM.

Mr. MELLER: 52.
asked the Home Secretary what provision has been made to house the families rendered homeless by the explosion in Mitcham; and whether he proposes to hold an inquiry as to the cause of the explosion?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed that those of the families rendered homeless who required accommodation are being housed in the old Holborn Poor-Law School at Mitcham. This is a disused building, belonging to the London County Council, which has been lent by them for this purpose. As regards the investigation of the explosion, I will consider the question of holding a formal inquiry after the inquest is completed. As I have just stated, the circumstances will be made the subject of the most searching investigation possible.

Mr. MELLER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the provision of accommodation is of a very temporary nature, quite unsuitable for the purpose, and that these homeless families are very anxious to obtain housing accommodation at the earliest possible moment? Will he or the Minister of Health give such facilities as are possible to enable these people to be housed properly in the shortest possible time?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is not the duty of the Home Office to take steps such as the hon. Member suggests, but whatever we can do to assist in that direction will no doubt be done.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does the Secretary of State consider that, if this had happened to the West-End class, the people would have been treated in the way to which attention has been called by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Meller)?

Mr. BANFIELD (for Mr. THORNE): 51.
asked the Home Secretary whether lie has caused inquiries to be made into the explosion at a chemical works in Mitcham, Surrey; whether any financial indemnity is being paid to tenants in respect to injuries received and loss of household effects; if he will state the date of the last visit to the works by a factory inspector and arrange to inspect a similar factory in the vicinity; and whether he will consider taking steps to prevent any similar factories being built adjacent to residential villas?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Immediate steps were taken by the Factory Department to inquire into this disastrous explosion, one of the engineering inspectors with special knowledge of chemical works being detailed for the purpose, and the hon. Member may be assured that the fullest possible investigation will be carried out. On the question of indemnification, I understand that active steps are being taken by the firm with a view to an expeditious settlement of claims, and that meanwhile all immediate needs are being satisfactorily met from the local relief fund. The works were last visited by factory inspectors on the 12th December last. I am informed that, while there are, of course, a number of works where inflammable materials are in use, there is no other factory in Mitcham doing similar work, but, if the hon. Member will let me know the name and address of the factory which he has in mind, I shall be glad to arrange for a special inspection. As regards the last part of the question, all I can say at present is that the whole position will be most carefully reviewed when the full results of the Inspector's inquiries and the proceedings at the inquest are available.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. PIKE: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the exemption from Income Tax of income remitted to the United Kingdom by British subjects resident in India and other tropical countries who are obliged to maintain an establishment at home on account of health or for reasons of their children's education?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): This matter has been considered on several occasions in recent years, but as the suggestion involves discrimination in favour of a particular class of taxpayers, it has not been found possible to give effect to it.

Mr. PIKE: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the additional expense is not due in many cases to the compulsory nature of the employment of those persons, and will he not reconsider his attitude towards them?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is always willing to consider any proposal. The hon. Member will see that he is inviting discrimination in favour of persons living in tropical countries and having an establishment in this country as against persons living in other countries.

Mr. PIKE: Is the Financial Secretary not aware that in the majority of cases those persons are living in tropical countries because their employment compels them to be there?

Mr. PIKE: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will afford opportunity, to business associations, chambers of commerce, etc., of considering the report of the committee appointed in 1924 to report upon the codification of Income Tax laws, and of making recommendations before legislation is introduced?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My right hon. Friend would certainly propose that important representative bodies should consider the report and make their recommendations before the legislation in question is introduced.

Mr. PIKE: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the report of the 1924 committee has yet been presented?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The commission was appointed, not in 1924 but in 1927.

LAND VALUE TAX.

Viscount CRANBORNE: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, without anticipating his Budget statement, he can give any indication of the intentions of the Government with regard to the repeal of the land value duties?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot add to the answers given to previous questions on this matter.

Viscount CRANBORNE: Will the Financial Secretary take into account the fact that there is very strong feeling on this subject in this House, and that the vast majority of the Members consider that the present situation is wholly unjustifiable?

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the Financial Secretary not think that he ought to consider the very strong feeling that also exists outside, in the country?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TRAFFIC REGULATION (MOTORISTS' INQUIRIES).

Mr. REMER: 56.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to numerous accidents which have been caused by motorists stopping their cars at cross-roads to inquire their route from scouts or police officers directing the traffic and thus diverting their attention from their duties; and if he will take steps to make such action an offence, either by legislation or regulation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): I agree that the practice to which my hon. Friend refers is undesirable and may be a source of inconvenience and possibly of danger to traffic. My attention has not, however, been drawn to it as a cause of numerous accidents. The following paragraph on the subject appears on page 8 of the Highway Code:
Do not pull up alongside a constable on point duty to ask him a question which other people could answer. His full attention is required for his duties.

MOTOR LICENCES (REFUNDS).

Captain ELLISTON: 57.
asked the Minister of Transport how many owners of motor cars obtained a refund of fees on surrender of their car licences for the months of November and December, 1932?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I assume that my hon. Friend's question relates to motor cars taxed on the basis of horsepower. On that assumption, the numbers of refunds of licence duty were 12,241 and 4,494, in November and December last, respectively.

ROAD FUND.

Mr. TOUCHE: 58.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he intends to take steps to abolish the Road Fund and to place expenditure on road grants on the annual Votes of Parliament, as recommended by the Estimates Committee?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: After full consideration, the Government have come to the conclusion that there would be no advantage in abolishing the Road Fund in present circumstances. They have adopted the alternative recommendation of the Select Committee on Estimates, and annexed to the Estimates for
the Ministry of Transport a statement showing in sufficient detail the estimated commitments and expenditure of the fund. My hon. Friend will find such a statement in an appendix to the Estimate for the Department for the financial year 1933–1934, which has already been published.

ROAD WORKS, PICCADILLY.

Mr. POTTER: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to see that those responsible for the roadway obstruction at the junction of Berkeley Street and Piccadilly, near Devonshire House, remove their excavation equipment, in view of the fact that it has been a hindrance to traffic for more than a year?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The obstruction at the junction of Berkeley Street and Piccadilly is due in part to the operations of the Underground Company, for which they obtained statutory powers and over which I have no control, and in part to the work in connection with the installation of traffic signals at this junction. The latter work has been expedited as much as possible, and should be completed in a day or two.

The amounts of the General Exchequer Grants as provisionally calculated, payable to the local authorities in question in respect of the years 1932–33 and 1933–34, and the rate in the £ to which such amounts are equivalent, are set out in the following Table:—


—
Amount payable in respect of 1932–33.
Amount payable in respect of 1933–34.


As a sum of money.
As a rate in the £.
As a sum of money.
As a rate in the £.






s.
d.

s.
d.


Jarrow B.
…
…
16,786
3
5
15,956
3
3


Felling-on-Tyne U.D.
…
…
10,169
2
11
9,276
2
8


Hebburn U.D.
…
…
15,114
4
8
14,559
4
6


In addition to the above payments, these local authorities, together with the other local authorities in the Administrative County of Durham, benefit through the General County Rate in the amounts of the Grant payable to the County Council. These amounts are, as provisionally calculated, £1,124,144 In respect of the year 1932–33, and £1,156,325 in respect of the year 1933–34, representing rates of 7s. 11d. and 8s. 1d. in the £ respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREEN LANE INSTITUTION, PATRICROFT.

Mr. BANFIELD (for Mr. THORNE): 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the report from the Lancashire Mental Hospitals' Board in regard to the excessive overcrowding at the Green Lane Public Assistance Insti-

I understand that, according to the present programme, the hoarding of the Underground Company in the middle of the road will be removed at the end of April.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Underground Railways had statutory power to create an excavation obstruction in Piccadilly Circus, and that we were able to get that obstruction taken away by bringing pressure upon his Department last year?

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCHEQUER GRANTS, TYNESIDE.

Mr. T. RAMSAY (for Mr. PEARSON): 37.
asked the Minister of Health the amounts of the general Exchequer grants paid to the local authorities of Jarrow Borough, Hebburn Urban District, and Felling-on-Tyne Urban District, in respect of the years 1932–33, and 1933–34; and the rate in the pound to which such amounts are equivalent?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

tution, Patricroft; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No such report has reached my right hon. Friend from the Lancashire Mental Hospitals' Board. In December last he called the attention of the public assistance authority to a report made by a Commissioner of the
Board of Control on this matter, and my right hon. Friend is informed that the public assistance authority are now in communication with the Lancashire Mental Hospitals' Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (EDUCATION DEPARTMENT).

Mr. BANFIELD (for Mr. THORNE): 44.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will obtain a copy of the instructions issued by the Governor of Kenya in 1931 with regard to the expression of political views by officers or teachers in the education department in Kenya?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am asking the Governor to supply me with a copy, which I will communicate to the hon. Member.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

RUSSIAN GOODS (IMPORTS).

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister if a date can now be given for the Motion which stands on the Paper in the names of myself and other Members of the House—
That this House regrets that, instead of making the burden of unemployment a national charge, His Majesty's Government have driven large numbers of able-bodied unemployed persons to seek the aid of the Poor Law, thereby exhausting the resources of an ever-increasing number of local authorities.
and also whether he has any alteration to announce in the business for this week?

The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the Government desire to find an early opportunity for the discussion of the Motion standing in his name. The subject-matter of that Motion interests, not only the party opposite, but many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. Conversations have taken place through the usual channels, and I am informed that it is considered possible to conclude the Committee stage of the Rent Restrictions Bill by to-morrow night. If that object can be achieved, then the Government would find time for this Debate before the Easter adjourn-
ment. I am aware that many important points will arise during the discussions on the Rent Restrictions Bill, but I venture to suggest that, if hon. Members were willing to put their case briefly, in order to secure the completion of the Committee stage of the Bill by to-morrow, that would make it possible for the Debate on Unemployment to take place early next week.
As regards the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, with reference to a possible variation of business this week, a Bill will be presented to-morrow to take powers to deal with the importation of Russian goods into this country. It is proposed to pass the Bill through all its stages on Wednesday, with a view to its passage into law at the earliest possible moment. The text of the Bill will be in the Vote Office to-morrow.

Mr. LANSBURY: With reference to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, that, of course, will depend upon the co-operation of all Members in the House, apart from ourselves, and we would press upon the Prime Minister the importance of the subject-matter of the Motion referred to. With reference to the very serious statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made, he will be aware that the House has had no written information on this subject from the Government; we have only had verbal statements by various Ministers. I desire to ask him, in order that the House and the country may be seized of all the facts of the case, whether the correspondence and the conversations that have taken place between the British Ambassador and M. Litvinoff, and between our Ambassador and the Government themselves, could be put into a White Paper, so that the House may judge of the legislation that is proposed. Of course, we do not know what the legislation is, but it must be something of a serious character, seeing that the Government want to get it through so speedily. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that the House and the country are entitled to the fullest information before any legislation is considered.

The PRIME MINISTER: I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that, in any event, on the 17th April, the Trade Agreement lapses, and something must be done to set up a system of trading. Regarding
the conversations which have taken place between our Ambassador and the Russian Foreign Secretary, I think it would be most improper and most unusual, in the middle of the negotiations, to publish papers. The Bill proposed is a purely enabling Bill.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in order that the country and the House may know what is the object of the proposed legislation, he will now state categorically whether it has any relation to the incidents that have been taking place in Russia during the last two or three weeks?

Captain P. MACDONALD: May I be allowed to put a question? I was informed, in reply to my question which was on the Paper, that the Prime Minister would be making a statement. I assumed that it would be in reply to my question. I would like to know, if I may, what is the nature of the charges against the British subjects now in prison in Russia; and, furthermore, if those prisoners are going to be allowed opportunities for defence?

The PRIME MINISTER: Into the latter part of the hon. and gallant Member's question I cannot enter, nor do I think that the House of Commons would wish me to do so at the moment.

HON. MEMBERS: Why?

The PRIME MINISTER: At the moment.

HON. MEMBERS: Why?

Captain MACDONALD: Surely, we are entitled to know if these British subjects have been definitely charged or not? That is the only question that I am asking, and I think the House is entitled to an answer.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I would like to ask him whether it would not be in accordance with precedent, when a grave Measure of this kind is proposed, dealing with our relations with a foreign country, that the whole matter, or so much of the matter as is not of a confidential character, should be laid before Parliament in a White Paper? Otherwise, the House is not seized of the facts which would render a proposal of this kind, perhaps, admissible.

The PRIME MINISTER: I beg the hon. and gallant Member's pardon; I misunderstood what he said. Actually at this moment it would not be in the interests of the accused for a statement to be made. It may be that to-morrow it would be, but at the moment I can assure the hon. and gallant Member and the House that it would not be in their interests. With reference to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), for the moment it is enough to say that something will have to be done in any event, on account of the lapsing of the Trade Agreement on the 17th April. But the Bill itself will be in the Vote Office tomorrow as early as possible.

LANSBURY: I really must press the right hon. Gentleman. The House, I am sure, wants only to know what is the terrible urgency of this legislation, that it must be passed in one day. Will not the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it has any connection in the mind of the Government with the recent events in Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: On that point, my right hon. Friend must wait until the statement is made on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. LANSBURY: The country has had a certain amount of information given it by Ministers, and we are told that there have been conversations in Moscow and in this country and despatches passing. Surely, if the legislation has any relation to this, the House is entitled to a White Paper giving the very fullest information in the possession of the Government.

The PRIME MINISTER: As I say, that information will be imparted to the House and the country on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. LANSBURY: How are we to discuss it if we have to discuss it on a mere statement? We surely ought to have it in our hands at least 24 hours before the Bill is introduced. I repeat the question. Will the Prime Minister issue a White Paper giving the House and the country all the information in their possession with regard to the arrested British prisoners?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Bill is going to be published to-morrow, and I must really ask my right hon. Friend not
to anticipate what is going to be in the Bill. It is a simple Measure, mainly a one-Clause Bill, though I believe there is a second Clause which is consequential. It will be in the hands of Members to-morrow and the statement that the Government have to make upon it will be made in the proper way on the Second Reading.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Will the Prime Minister explain why it is necessary to pass this Bill through all its stages in one day when the Trade Agreement will not lapse for a fortnight from now, and will he not further consider the importance of having the statement for which the right hon. Gentleman has asked, having regard to the fact that, immediately after the Minister's speech is made on the Second Reading, we shall be asked to pass the Bill through all its stages and shall have no time to consider the statement before the Bill is expected to pass to another place?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is necessary that the Bill should pass before the Easter Adjournment.

Mr. MAXTON: Arising out of the intimation on business, do I understand that the Prime Minister is asking the House to facilitate Government business on the Housing Bill so that we may have time for an unemployment Debate and for a Debate on a Bill to impose punitive taxation on Russian goods? If that is the case, we who sit in this part of the House will certainly not agree to any arrangement for the facilitation of Government business.

The PRIME MINISTER: The facilities that we ask for regarding the Rent Restrictions Bill are for the purpose of getting a Debate on unemployment.

Mr. LANSBURY: I really must go back. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to ask the House blindfold to pass legislation in reference to trade with Russia and give us absolutely no information except what the Government choose to give us on Wednesday on the Bill? I ask him to consider what sort of position he would take up if he stood here instead of me. All we are asking for is that the Government shall give to the country and the House of Commons the information which have compelled them to take so grave and serious a step.

The PRIME MINISTER: I really have already answered that question. The information which would be given in the White Paper, which could not be issued before Wednesday morning, is the same information that the Government would give in moving the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. LANSBURY: I apologise for being so persistent, but cannot you leave this until Thursday and give yourselves time to print a White Paper giving the information that you propose to give us verbally? Surely the House of Commons is not to be treated as a mere automaton registering the decision of the Government blindfold.

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend has a very wrong impression of the House of Commons. What I have announced must be accepted by the House of Commons—

Mr. MACLEAN: Why must it?

The PRIME MINISTER: I did not say it must in that sense. I said nothing can be done without the consent of the House of Commons.

Mr. MAXTON: You are asking for opposition of the strongest kind, and you will get it.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am very sorry to hear that. The Bill will be in Members' hands to-morrow and the Second Reading will be moved the next day.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why the House should not be fully informed of the documents? There must have been an interchange of documents, and I submit that it is in acordance with practice that they should be presented to Parliament in a White Paper before the House of Commons is asked to take action. If the action to be taken is merely as regards the Trade Agreement, which lapses on 17th April, the situation is different, but the Prime Minister has not said that. If the action to be taken has relation to negotiations which have been proceeding with the Soviet Government with regard to the arrest of British subjects, I submit that there ought to be documents on the subject presented to Parliament prior to the Debate.

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the interests of the British prisoners are not sacrificed?

Sir A. KNOX: Does the Prime Minister realise that he has the feeling of the great bulk of the country behind him in the matter?

Mr. McGOVERN: Do not the Prime Minister and the Government think that action of this character at the present moment may prejudice the chances of a fair trial of the men who are arrested?

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to give notice, because I want to keep faith with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, that in these circumstances we shall not dream of facilitating any Government business. I should like the Prime Minister to understand that the subject matter of the Resolution is as important as any question that may come before the House.

NURSES REGISTRATION ACT (1919) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the Nurses Registration Act, 1919, with respect to the registration of existing nurses," presented by Mr. Batey; supported by Mr. Hartland, Mr. David Davies, Mr. Logan, Mr. Tinker and Mr. Daggar, to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 12th April, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

NORWICH CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Short Title.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. LAWSON: I desire to move the new Clause—(Amendment of s. 76 of Army Act)—standing in my name.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That will come properly when the Clauses already in the Bill have been disposed of.

CLAUSE 2.—(Army Act and Air Force Act to be in force for specified times.)

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 35.

Division No. 101.]
AYES.
[3.44 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Donner, P. W.
Ker, J. Campbell


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Doran, Edward
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Knight, Holford


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Duggan, Hubert John
Knox, Sir Alfred


Aske, Sir Robert William
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lees-Jones, John


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Eden, Robert Anthony
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Atholl, Duchess of
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Levy, Thomas


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lewis, Oswald


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Elmley, Viscount
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Balniel, Lord
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Llewellin, Major John J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd.Gr'n)


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Erneat Nathaniel
Fermoy, Lord
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Bernays, Robert
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Borodale, Viscount
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Bossom, A. C.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lymington, Viscount


Boulton, W. W.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
McCorquodale, M. S.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Briant, Frank
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Glossop, C. W. H.
McKie, John Hamilton


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Goldie, Noel B.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Burnett, John George
Gower, Sir Robert
Maynew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Butler, Richard Austen
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Meller, Richard James


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Grimston, R. V.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hales, Harold K.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hanbury, Cecil
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hartland, George A.
Morrison, William Shephard


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnos)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Clarke, Frank
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nunn, William


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G.A.


Conant, R. J. E.
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Patrick, Colin M.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cooper, A. Duff
Holdsworth, Herbert
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)


Copeland, Ida
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Pike, Cecil F.


Cowan, D. M.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Potter, John


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Horsbrugh, Florence
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cross, R. H.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Crossley, A. C.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Davison, Sir William Henry
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rea, Walter Russell


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Janner, Barnett
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Denville, Alfred
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Remer, John R,


Dickie, John P.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Ross, Ronald D.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Runge, Norah Cecil
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Weymouth, Viscount


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Strauss, Edward A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Savery, Samuel Servington
Sutcliffe, Harold
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Thornton, Sir Frederick Charles
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Skelton, Archibald Noel
Touche, Gordon Cosmo



Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smithers, Waldron
Turton, Robert Hugh
Sir George Penny and Lord


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Erskine.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, George Henry
Nathan, Major H. L.


Banfield, John William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, Gabriel


Batey, Joseph
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon, Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhough'on>
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, Thomas W.
McGovern, John
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Prices in respect billeting.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.58 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I rise to oppose the Clause, which deals with the question of prices in respect of billeting, the prices being included in the Schedule at the end of the Bill. A cursory glance at the Schedule will show to all hon. Members what an extraordinarily out-of-date arrangement this really is. The Schedule starts with a statement as to the charge for lodging and attendance for a soldier where meals are furnished and the maximum price—

3.59 p.m.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman, I think, on this Clause, is entitled to argue whether soldiers are to be billeted or not. The details of payment will come more appropriately when the Schedule is reached than at this moment.

Mr. JONES: I see your point, but the Clause says:
There shall be paid to the keeper of a victualling house for the accommodation.
etc., according to prices laid down in the Schedule. Therefore, I submit that I am entitled to discuss the prices which
are laid down, because they are specifically referred to in the Clause.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I recollect a previous Debate on the question of billeting, and it has invariably been the custom to debate it when the Schedule has been reached, because it is easier to discuss prices there than at this stage. The general principle as to whether there should be billeting at all arises here, and the details appear in the Schedule.

Mr. JONES: I accept your Ruling and will return to the point when we come to the Schedule. The question raised at the moment is whether we—

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: May I draw attention to the marginal note which says:
Prices in respect of billeting.
The terms of the Clause refer not merely to whether or not there shall be billeting, but to the prices made for billeting, and are not those the points which can be debated?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that in Committee where a Clause merely puts a Schedule into operation, and the Schedule itself contains the details of the proposal, it is generally regarded as more convenient to discuss the details on the Schedule when it is reached. It does not affect the rights of an hon. Member.

Mr. MACLEAN: We are discussing the question of prices, and therefore it is open to the Committee to discuss the prices for billeting—whether prices shall be low or high; whether there shall be alterations in price or not.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: In dealing with this Clause there will be no objection, I think, under the Rules of the House, to the hon. Member mentioning some point in the Schedule in order to support his argument on the main proposition in the Clause.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think, perhaps, I had better hear the hon. Member further. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), obviously the House could not make any alteration to this Clause. The Committee can reject the Clause, in which case no money is payable, but any alteration which the hon. Member desires to make should be made to the Schedule, and, therefore, it is inconvenient to discuss details at the moment.

Mr. MACLEAN: But it does not do away with the fact that any hon. Member has the right to discuss prices?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That will come on the Schedule.

Mr. MACLEAN: Prices are mentioned in the Schedule, and surely prices can be discussed here?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That bears out what I said, that the most convenient place to discuss details will be on the Schedule itself.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I would like to keep in order, and I gather that you are merely ruling that it would be inconvenient to discuss the question of prices at this point. I would like a Ruling as to whether at this point we are entitled as a right to discuss the schedule of prices?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member quite appreciates that nothing can be done on this Clause to alter prices set out in the Schedule. Therefore, any alteration of detail really arises on the Schedule. If the hon. Member likes to discuss at this stage whether those prices should be altered, I think it would be in order, but he cannot amend the details of prices.

Mr. MACLEAN: I did not suggest that.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I think our minds are fairly clear now as to what we can discuss. The Clause is clear in that it says:
There shall be paid to the keeper of a victualling house for the accommodation provided by him in pursuance of the Army Act or the Air Force Act the prices specified in the Schedule to this Act.
The point I want to raise, first of all, is as to whether this procedure of billeting is a system that ought to be maintained in modern conditions. Let me refer to the Schedule to show how antediluvian this arrangement is. There is, for instance, an item in the Schedule, "Stable room." What on earth does a member of the Air Force want with stable room? I should have thought stable room would have been quite appropriate 20 to 50 years ago, but you cannot stable an aeroplane—you cannot in a stable anyhow, and certainly not in a stable as contemplated here. If it could be put in a stable, the size necessary to house it would cost more than 2s. 3d. a day. Therefore, it seems to me that the prices which are referred to in this Clause are hopelessly out-of-date, and thoroughly unworthy of a modern Act of Parliament.
May I put another point with regard to this practice of victualling? As I understand, it is within the competence of the officer commanding a particular battalion operating in a certain area to impose upon the residents of that area the necessity for housing any of his forces.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this occasion. This deals merely with Section 106 of the Army Act which sets out what should be paid to the keeper of a victualling house for billeting. The general question of billeting does not arise under that Section.

Mr. JONES: Do I understand that you rule that my remarks hitherto have not been applicable to Part III or Section 106, to which you have referred?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member forgive me? As long as he confines his remarks to payments made to keepers of victualling houses they will be in order. He then went on to the general law of billeting, which is not covered by this Clause. That is covered by another Clause in the Army Act.

Mr. JONES: I have not yet completed my argument. I have only just started it, in point of fact. The point I was trying to make was this: I understood that, under the present procedure, it is competent for an officer commanding a force of soldiery to billet them, or to impose upon people resident in a certain area the responsibility of housing or victualling them. In the days when this kind of legislation was framed, that sort of procedure might have been very desirable, and, perhaps, even justifiable, but in modern days people have a much higher regard for their rights as private individuals. People have become much more sensitive to their elementary rights than was the case 30, 40 or 50 years ago. People are less afraid of the long arm of the law, and, therefore, to retain such a, provision in the law is calculated to arouse in the minds and hearts of the citizens a considerable measure of resentment—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now trying to argue Section 108A of the Army Act, which is not affected by this Clause.

Mr. JONES: With great respect, I am looking at Sections 106 and 108. Perhaps I had better read 106. It is as follows:
The keeper of a victualling house upon whom any officer, soldier, or horse is billeted shall receive such officer, soldier, or horse in his victualling house, and furnish there the accommodation following; that is to say, lodging and attendance for the officer; and lodging, attendance, and food for the soldier; and stable room and forage for the horse, in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act.
That is precisely what I have been discussing. Sub-section (2) says:
Where the keeper of a victualling house on whom any officer, soldier, or horse is billeted desires, by reason of his want of accommodation or of his victualling house being full or otherwise, to be relieved from the liability to receive such officer, soldier, or horse in his victualling house, and provides for such officer, soldier, or horse in the immediate neighbourhood such good and sufficient accommodation as he is required by this Act to provide, and as is approved by the constable isuing the billets, he shall be relieved from providing the same in his victualling house.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Does "good and sufficient accommodation" include beer?

Mr. JONES: That depends on the taste of the commanding officer and the
measure of command he imposes on those upon whom he billets his forces. I have just indicated that the obligation is a dual one. Not only is a person in possession of a victualling house obliged to provide for the billeting of people imposed upon him by a commanding officer, but if his place is full, he has the further obligation of finding alternative accommodation. That is something reminiscent of modern Rent Acts. The question I am raising is the general question, namely, should a provision such as this be retained in a modern Act of Parliament? After all, it is the business of hon. Members opposite to see to it that the retention of such a Clause does not create unnecessary friction and antagonism in the minds of the people of the country. When at the whim of a commanding officer a number of people are billeted upon unwilling victuallers, it seems to me clear that you are running the risk of bringing the Army into grave disrepute.
For the purpose of illustration, I turn to the sort of conception which those who framed the Act have of the kind of compensation that is adequate for people undertaking these responsible duties. I will not discuss them. I merely recall the Committee to the Schedule, according to which breakfast has to be prepared for 7d. and dinner for 10d. Not even in Lyons' or the most fashionable restaurants of the town can you find it possible to provide a dinner for less than 10d. Then as to supper. This is where my hon. and learned Friend comes in. Supper, no doubt, provides for the commodity he has in mind. Supper is to be provided for the maximum price of 4d. I am not acquainted with the modern price of beer, but I should imagine that the amount available for 4d. would be hopelessly inadequate. Then there are such details as candles, vinegar, salt, and other commodities, as well as "the necessary utensils for dressing and eating," whatever they may be—all for 10d. a night. It stands to reason that a charge such as this for people imposed upon unwilling hosts is a ridiculously inadequate charge. There is the further imposition in regard to the housing of the horses:
Stable room and 10 lbs. of oats, 12 lbs. of hay and 8 lbs. of straw a day for each horse—2s. 3d. a day.
I wonder where the agricultural expert of the Government will be, and what the price of corn will be under the present
Government. Then there is the vital point: Is it to be Empire corn or foreign corn? May I ask whether that point was raised at the Ottawa Conference or not? It is a matter of first class importance to the State whether the horses of our Army are fed on Imperial oats or foreign oats. There is a further obvious injustice in a small note shoved almost out of sight—
An officer shall pay for his food.
Why in the world should an officer of His Majesty's Army be called upon to pay for his food? There is no reference to drink. Perhaps it assumes, in view of the fact that the officer is exempt from the necessity of providing candles, vinegar, and salt, that he may be allowed to have his drink for nothing. One is driven to the inevitable conclusion that there is every reason why Clause 3 should not be allowed to stand part of the Army Act. I could go on adducing reasons for the omission of the Clause, but I think I have indicated sufficient to the Government and its representatives, especially the Minister of Agriculture, who is not here, the urgency and the grave importance of the matters to which we have called attention on this Clause.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I support the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) in his opposition to the Clause. It is interesting to note that for lodging and attendance for a soldier there is an allowance of 10d. per night and for each additional soldier only 8d. In the Schedule the allowance for an officer is 3s. per night. I cannot imagine why any householder or person who has to billet an officer, non-commissioned officer or private should have to take in the same house an officer, or more than one officer, one or more privates, and perhaps a sergeant or corporal, and receive such a difference in pay. If any Member of the Government Front Bench was a proprietor of a victualling house and a representative of the Army came along, he might say: "I have three officers, three private soldiers, and one or two sergeants whom I desire to billet upon you. In fact, I intend to force them upon you unless you can prove that you have not available accommodation for them, in which case you will have to provide alternative accommodation. The
payment for each officer will be 3s., for the first soldier 10d., and for each additional soldier 8d. per night."
Why should there be that difference between the billeting price paid in respect of an officer and of a private soldier? Why, too, should there be any difference in the amount paid for one private soldier and another soldier? Presumably the soldiers will sleep in the same room, and possibly in the same bed. It may be that for the convenience of the person responsible for victualling them that they would be billeted in separate rooms. Why should that person be asked to accept 10d. for one soldier and only 8d. for another soldier? The gross unfairness of this arrangement will appeal to hon. Members. They will also appreciate the unfairness of the difference in the amount paid for billeting an officer and billeting a, private soldier. What is the definition of an officer for this purpose? There are commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers, but the term officer is so loose as to leave itself open for a person owning a victualling house to demand a definition of the term "officer," and I am not sure that if he went to court he would not be able to sustain his claim for higher pay in respect of a soldier. How can the proprietor of a victualling house be expected almost to keep four soldiers for the price that he would obtain for victualling and billeting one officer? Imagine my position if an Army representative came to my house and said: "I am going to billet four soldiers on you, and shall allow you 10d. for the first and 8d. for each of the others," which would mean 2s. 10d. for the four, and he then went to my next-door neighbour and said: "I am going to billet one officer on you, and I shall give you more than I am going to give the man next door for the billeting of four soldiers." Surely, the injustice of that arrangement will be apparent to any hon. Member, and I hope they will not permit such a grossly unfair thing to pass without more discussion.
Where could any representative of the Army go into a coffee house or a restaurant and get such a dinner as is specified in the Schedule? The dinner, as specified, is priced at 10d., and it is set forth as being in accordance with breakfast under Part I of the Second Schedule of the Army Act. From that particular Section of the Army Act I find that dinner,
which is to be served hot, irrespective of the convenience or otherwise of the householder, is to consist of 12 ounces of meat, previous to being dressed, six ounces of bread, eight ounces of potatoes or other vegetables. I do not know any place in London and I doubt if there is any place in any part of England where a householder could buy that quantity of food for 10d. Where could you buy 12 ounces of meat, regardless of bread and vegetables, much less pay for the cost of cooking, the wear and tear of the cooking utensils and the proportionate amount in respect of house rent, to provide such a meal for 10d.? If it were done in a controlled house the proportionate cost of the meal would be reduced, but if in a decontrolled house the cost might be anything up to if not more than double.
No provision is made in the Army Act as to the type of house in which these meals are to be cooked, or the rent that is being paid for such a house. One hon. Member suggests that a Fair Wages Clause ought to be inserted in the arrangements made with the people who are responsible for cooking the meal. Many ordinary householders upon whom soldiers may be billeted may have to employ someone to prepare the meal.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that the question of billeting on the ordinary householder only arises under Section 108A, and in that case the amount paid is not covered by this Clause.

Mr. McENTEE: It was a mistake on my part. I mentioned the ordinary householder, but the conditions would be the same in the case of a person who is not an ordinary householder. I am not sure whether without the aid of a legal man it would be possible to determine where the ordinary householder would cease and the extraordinary householder would come in under the terms of the Bill. My main point is the difference in price which is paid in respect of the officer and the soldier. The difference is out of all proportion to what is considered to be reasonably fair by ordinary people like myself. It would be well if hon. Members acquainted themselves with the terms as to the accommodation to be provided by the proprietor of a victualling house who may be engaged in the ordinary way with the provision of food and lodgings for people other than
soldiers. If a soldier happens to be billeted upon them they have to put up with the conditions laid down in Part I of the Second Schedule to the Army Act. That Schedule says that for breakfast there must be five ounces of bread, one pint of tea, with milk and sugar, and four ounces of bacon. Is it necessary to provide scales, etc., for accurately weighing and measuring the amount of food to be given to soldiers?
The Army Act does not say to what penalty, if any, the owner of a victualling house is to be subject if he or she evades anything with respect to the provision of the meals or the quantity that is to be given. The officer has to pay for his meals. One would imagine that the soldier did not pay for his meals. The soldier does pay for them, but he pays for them in quite a different way. The amount is stopped from his wages and paid on his behalf instead of being paid by him direct. There seems to be a sort of suspicion in this arrangement that the private soldier is not to be trusted to pay for his food when he is billeted on a victualling house, but that the officer can be trusted to pay for his meals. In case the soldier does not pay his bill the Army officer comes along and pays it. I presume it would be the sergeant major, but I am not familiar with the routine and therefore I do not think I had better go into that matter at all. The whole thing is unfair. In the Second Schedule, Part II it says:
For the purposes of this part of this Schedule the expression" furnished with lodging' shall include the provision of a separate bed for each officer and soldier.
I was wrong when I said that there was a possibility of two soldiers being billeted in one bed; they have to be furnished with separate beds. Surely, the Committee will agree that it is altogether unfair that an officer should be paid for at a rate of 3s., which is more than the rate allowed for four soldiers, and I hope they will not allow the Clause to pass. I am sorry that in the circumstances which now prevail there is no opportunity of referring this Clause back. We have no Amendment to provide that the proportion paid in the case of the billeting of an officer and the billeting of a soldier should be somewhat approximate, but I hope that in the Estimates next year we shall not have these figures but something much more reasonable. Look at the
ration allowance; 12 ounces of meat, six ounces of bread and eight ounces of potatoes for dinner. They are allowed to serve other vegetables in place of potatoes. If a soldier was served up with eight ounces of spinach instead of potatoes, I think he would rather resent it. But under the Bill the victualling house-owner is quite entitled to serve up eight ounces of spinach to the soldier, not to the officer. The soldier would have a very bad time if he made a meal off spinach instead of potatoes. The whole thing it not fair, and I shall vote against it.

4.35 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: It is, of course, the custom when the Army Annual Act comes before this House for its Clauses to be subject to some scrutiny, and no fault can be found with the Opposition for examining word by word its provisions. It is undoubtedly right that this House, not only in the interests of the soldier but in the interests of the State as well, should examine a Bill which provides for the maintenance and conditions of service of the soldier and the relations of the Army with the civil power. But if the Opposition are looking to this Clause for a proper opportunity to make such a scrutiny it is a little unfortunate, because the scales provided are the scale which they themselves passed through this House of Commons when they were the Government of the day. I am afraid that they have wakened up rather late in the day. They missed their opportunity about three years ago when they could have changed these scales and added to the money which is allowed for the billeting of a soldier. Unfortunately, they have a past, that is the weakness of their position.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: Sufficient has been said to show that this Clause is altogether out of date. It is obviously one of those Clauses which are carried on year after year without any consideration as to the changes which may have occurred in the circumstances of the times. The bon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has said that we lost our opportunity to change these things three years ago. So far as we are concerned we have no
concern with the past, we refuse to recognise it, we are only concerned with the present and the future. I suggest that when licensed victuallers are having such a very bad time as they are, according to the hundreds of postcards which I receive, that to keep an old-fashioned Clause like this in the Bill is wrong. Obviously, the rations set out in the Clause cannot be provided at the price, and the Government are really letting down their own good friends by such a proposal. These people have always been supporters in the main of the Conservative party, and while they are quite prepared to believe in their King, their country and their Empire, I do not see why they should be called upon to provide a soldier with a supper for the sum of 4d., and I am at a greater loss still to understand why for 7d. they should be compelled to provide a breakfast which includes a quarter of a pound of bacon, which, of itself, eats up more than half of the 7d.
The time has come when this old-fashioned method of putting in the same figures year after year should be seriously reconsidered. I have been wandering who it is that might be favoured with the billeting of soldiers upon them at the figures proposed. I have been wondering whether if a battalion of soldiers was billeted in Birmingham the Midland Hotel would be required to take one-half of the battalion at the prices laid down here? I suggest that this is not only unjust to the people who would have to provide the accommodation at these ridiculous prices, but that it gives rise to the question as to whether the whole thing is not another example of class bias and class legislaion. I presume that only a certain class of people are to be called upon to provide this accommodation at a price which everyone agrees is ridiculous. The person who will be penalised is the unfortunate licensee and, therefore, in opposing this Clause and suggesting that it requires revision we on these benches are attempting to be the friends of the licensed victualler. We are putting up a case on behalf of an unfortunate class of people, who at the moment are suffering from terrible taxation, and are unable in the main to get a living, whilst the brewer takes the profits. It is the unfortunate licensed victualler and his wife, who are
slaving their hearts out in an endeavour to make a living, trying to please the public and the police, who have entered into obligations which they now find it most difficult to carry out; these are the unfortunate individuals who are to be burdened with this provision and who may be called upon at any time to provide this accommodation at the prices laid down in the Bill.
It may be said that if the Clause is rejected the effect would be that they would get nothing at all. That may be an improvement, because if no such provision is made it would look like barefaced robbery to billet soldiers without payment. It is barefaced robbery now, but that would bring the thing to a head and would call for some revision of the Clause. I have been looking at all the things they are called upon to provide. I suppose that 100 years ago someone in the War Office took a great deal of pains to draw up this table. I can see some fun occurring over the five ounces of bread, and the provision that a soldier must be served with a pint of tea for his supper. If they do not drink it something might happen. Again, I think we should call into consultation hon. Members like the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow (Major Sir I. Salmon), who are connected with the great catering business and get their opinions about this business. I think the hon. and gallant Member for. Harrow should take part in this Debate and tell us what he thinks about these suggestions and proposals; and whether he would be willing to take on this contract for a fern like J. Lyons & Co. I am afraid that the firm would turn down the whole thing, because they would not be able to make anything out of it.
We are, I contend, fully justified in objecting to this Clause, and may I remind the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green that this is the first time I have had an opportunity of debating this matter, a fact which I hope he will bear in mind on future occasions. The first time that the hon. Member for Wednesbury had an opportunity he brought this particular matter to the attention of the Committee, and I hope the hon. Member will credit me with this in the years to come. These proposals are altogether unreasonable. A Clause in the main Act lays a tremendous responsibility on the keeper of a victual-
ling house. At the bidding of the officer he must do all kinds of things. The last thing that entered into the minds of those who drafted this document apparently was the payment of reasonable remuneration. As a member of a trade union who believes in people being paid a fair wage for what they do, I consider that these proposals lead to the sweating of the unfortunate individual who has to do the billeting. To be paid 8d. for the first soldier and 7d. for the other sounds more like a story about little tin soldiers walking into little tin houses.
I trust that the Clause will be rejected. I am sure that its deletion would not make matters worse than they are, but might deal to some definite alteration for the better. These regulations are out of date. The whole system ought to be reconsidered in the light of modern developments and requirements. The soldier to-day is not the soldier of yesterday. He is far better educated than his predecessor, and a far better citizen simply from the citizenship point of view, and he deserves decent accommodation when billeted. Reasonable prices should be paid to the people who look after him and his comfort.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I was going to ask the Minister whether he would explain to the Committee exactly what is the procedure affecting the person who is called upon to supply accommodation. There should be an all-round discussion upon this matter, because what is being asked is that the ordinary citizen, the civilian, subject to the ordinary law, should suddenly become subject to military law in the sense that he has to supply accommodation and attendance for troops. That must be news to the average citizen who is not accustomed to a military area in time of peace. The requirements of the law may be fairly familiar to people in a great area like Aldershot or Catterick, but to the majority of the citizens of this country it really must be news that a gentleman in uniform can come down upon them, not necessarily because they keep a public house of any description, or even a cafe or hotel, but if he thinks the accommodation is available can come down upon them as ordinary citizens and demand accommodation, it may be even in a working-man's house.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The power to "come down" on the private citizen is not covered by this Clause, which deals solely with the keepers of inns, hotels, public houses and eating houses.

Mr. LAWSON: I am sorry I was not present when you gave a decision earlier on that subject, but it does not materially alter the point that I wish to make. One of the things that we should have explained to us is what is usually the standard of accommodation that is considered necessary for the officer, the private, and horses? Must it be the accommodation of an ordinary hotel or of a high-class hotel? Is the keeper of the victualling house called upon to provide approximately the same accommodation for the ordinary soldiers as for the officers, or is it only necessary, in the case of the private soldier, that he should arrange some rough-and-ready accommodation such as the soldier gets in barracks or on active service, when he sleeps in the open or perhaps in a stable? It seems to me that the keeper of a victualling house is in a very unfortunate position, because he may be so placed that he cannot find the standard of accommodation or the amount of accommodation that is demanded to meet the needs of officer, soldier and horse. I know that it says in the Army Act:
Where the keeper of a victualling house … desires, by reason of his want of accommodation or of his victualling house being full or otherwise, to be relieved from the liability to receive such officer, soldier or horse in his victualling house, and provides for such officer, soldier or horse in the immediate neighbourhood such good and sufficient accommodation as he is required by this Act to provide, and as is approved by the constable issuing the billets, he shall be relieved from providing the same in his victualling house.
Therefore, if the keeper of the victualbng house thinks that he cannot find the necessary accommodation, he can repudiate the officer's right to ride roughshod over his ordinary civilian rights only if he himself can find alternative accommodation in that area. It seems to me that other people in the area are not likely to be very keen on billeting troops at short notice in this way. If the keeper of the victualling house went to these other people, I can imagine that they would say, "No, it is not my obligation, it is yours. I am not going to be rushed any more than you." What is the position
in the case of the owner of the victualling house, if he fails to find alternative accommodation? Perhaps his own house is partly full or full, and it may be that part of his stables is occupied. He may think that he has neither the necessary accommodation nor the necessary food nor the necessary people to attend to those who call upon him for sustenance and shelter. He calls upon someone in the neighbourhood to help him with alternative accommodation and does not get it. What is the position of such a man?
It is very rough indeed on people that at a moment's notice, willy-nilly, they should be subject to a military law. It is made quite clear in the Army Act that this is something extraordinary, designed to supply the needs of the Army by compulsion. Here we are living under this very old law, which has been in operation for a century. There was a time, of course, when the ordinary citizen could be imposed upon by any troop of horse that came along. He had to accept them without any payment at all perhaps, or if payment was made it was such as the officer in charge chose to give him. It is laid down now that keepers of victualling houses have to be paid, and there are certain conditions under which they operate, but the fact remains that these unfortunate people are subject to a law which is over and above that to which the average citizen is subject.
It may be that in the middle of the night or the early morning the officer of a troop of soldiers turns up and demands that he and his men be attended to, that they be given shelter and food, and at the prices laid down here. Suppose that the officer is not in a position to pay at once for the food, how is the unfortunate innkeeper going to manage? What the Act really does is to say to the licensee that regardless of what he thinks, whether or not he thinks he has sufficient accommodation and food, if the officer in charge decides that he is in a position to supply the accommodation and the food at the price laid down in an Act of Parliament, the innkeeper is not to be the judge, and he has to provide what is demanded or find alternative accommodation, and the probability is that anyone to whom he goes with the request to find alternative accommodation will not accept the obliga-
tion. Conservatives and Liberals have protested against these provision in the past.
Here is an old-time practice, centuries old. No doubt, in past days, it was the only possible means of meeting the needs of troops on the march. But this old practice which may not, I agree, come into operation for a considerable time in some areas, allows any officer in charge of troops on the march to break in upon the inhabitants of a district at any time of the day or night to demand accommodation and it is time that this provision of the Act was overhauled and some new system of billeting arranged by the War Office. We propose to argue later that if this system is to prevail conditions and prices should be laid down which will be more reasonable than those prevailing at present. Sub-section (5) of Section 106 of the Army Act actually provides that the officer need not pay at the time:
If by reason of a sudden order to march or otherwise an officer or soldier is not able to make such payment … as is above required he shall before he departs make up with such keeper of a victualling house an account of the amount due to him and sign the same and forthwith transmit the account … to the Army Council who shall cause the amount named in such account as due to be paid.
What is the position of the unfortunate keeper of a victualling house under that Sub-section? In the nature of things it is not the ordinary hotel-keeper who will be called upon to meet these needs. In the ordinary course it will be in some remote place that such a case will arise. Supposing an officer and soldiers are planted upon the keeper of a lodging house in some remote place they may "eat him out of house and home," so to speak, and all that is given to him to meet his needs, perhaps for a week or so, is a "chit" signed by the officer which lie can send to the War Office. Of course, when he sends it to the War Office it will be paid immediately and without further question. All that this poor person has to do is to send the "chit" to the War Office and he will get the money by return of post. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or after the next war."] The War Office is certainly the acme of efficiency. More than once I have paid my tribute to it and I have always said that the old sterotyped notion of the War Office as a hide-bound sort of estab-
lishment might have been true a century ago, or even later, but is not true to-day. At the same time, from the very nature of its business and the way in which that business has to be done, we know what is bound to happen in a case such as I have supposed. Once the victualling house keeper sends in this "chit," he will receive a long long list of questions. Letter after letter will pass and the matter will go backwards and forwards and I can imagine the unfortunate applicant being almost at the point of starvation before the "chit" is cashed by the War Office. That is the kind of position into which people will be driven by legislation of this kind.
The boarding-house keepers themselves ought to have some consideration. They ought to be consulted and they ought to be consenting parties instead of having these demands thrust upon them. Instead of being subject to the yea or nay of an officer who conies along with a party of soldiers and says: "We are going to stay here for a night or a day or several nights and several days," the boarding-house keeper ought to be a co-operating partner in the business. Some arrangement ought to be made for taking counsel with the proper people about these matters. The prices, which we shall discuss later, appear to savour of the seventeenth century but though we may not go into that matter at present, one may say that the prices themselves are an indication that the victualling house keepers occupy a negligible place in the minds of the Army authorities when the needs of the Army are to be satisfied.
I ask the Financial Secretary to explain in clear terms what this obligation means and what is the usual standard of accommodation. Does lodging and attendance for an officer mean the class of lodging and attendance which he would get at a first class London hotel? Does lodging and attendance and food for soldiers mean the ordinary barrack room service and fare? Are the soldiers waited upon by some of their own people; have they their own cook, or has the food to be cooked for them by the people of the house and are the servants subject to being rushed about day and night? I ask him also to make some reference to Subsection (2) of Section 106 of the Army Act as to alternative accommodation. If a victualling house keeper refers an
officer to another person in the neighbourhood for alternative accommodation, and if that person refuses, is the victualling house keeper who is first called upon, obliged to provide accommodation, or does the officer act as an arbitrator between the two? An officer may come along to a certain house and say: "This is the place we want." The owner says: "We cannot do it but so-and-so can." Then, so-and-so replies: "You can hold the baby; I am not going to do it." What is to happen in a case of that kind? I would also like him to explain the point under Sub-section (5) as to the presentation of a chit instead of money. Does the War Office pay promptly, or is the lodging-house keeper subjected to a long drawn-out torture of innumerable letters and questions until he is almost in despair and thinking of going to the workhouse as a result of having that military force billeted upon him?

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—

5.12 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): You have already informed the Committee, Captain Bourne, that on this occasion a general discussion on the principle of billeting is out of order and also that any discussion on the question of prices would come better on the Schedule. In spite of that Ruling hon. Members opposite have been extremely ingenious in discussing both the general principle while some of them dealt at some length with the question of prices. I do not know whether you propose to allow any further discussion on prices until we come to the Schedule, but in any case I do not propose to deal either with the general principle or with the question of prices at this stage. I would remind the Committee that if hon. Members who propose to vote against this Clause succeeded in defeating it the only result would be that billeting would continue, as provided for in the Army Act, but no remuneration whatever would be payable to inn-keepers and others who would suffer under such billeting.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) informed us with a certain amount of self-congratulation that he had no past. I am sure, having listened to
his eloquent speech, that he has a great future and I sincerely hope that that future will not be affected by the consideration being present in the minds of some of his constituents, that he voted against the remuneration of inn-keepers in respect of troops billeted upon them. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) asked me some questions but as he has not waited for a reply and as they were not questions of very deep interest—indeed I think they had not occurred to the hon. Member very long before the Debate—it is perhaps unnecessary for me to deal with them.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is as well acquainted as I am with the reasons for this Section of the Army Act and the procedure upon which it is operated. He asked whether the War Office would pay promptly on such demands as are mentioned in Subsection (5) if presented in due and proper form. They certainly will be met as promptly as possible provided the War Office are satisfied, as in the past they have been satisfied, that these demands are properly authorised. The hon. Member also asked me to describe the class of accommodation that is insisted upon. He knows as well as I do what it is, and he knows also that it is almost impossible to describe the class of accommodation that is demanded. It depends on the style and nature of the inn or victualling house to which access is demanded. As a general rule all that is asked is such accommodation as the house can conveniently provide—clean and good accommodation both for men and officers.
The hon. Member for West Waltham-stow made a great point as to the difference between men and officers, and asked why the price was different in one case from the other. The answer to that question must be obvious to anyone. An officer is expected to have a room to himself when possible, whereas three or four men can be put into one room, and the cost, therefore, must be very much less for a man than for an officer. He also asked why it was less for a second soldier than for the first soldier. There is such a thing as a reduction on quantity, as I think the hon. Member must know.
Hon. Members opposite have almost exhausted their ingenuity in describing this Clause as though it were something new and revolutionary, unheard-of before,
unknown to any previous House of Commons, which this Government have suddenly introduced. They have also suggested all sorts of problems which might arise and make the working of the Clause very difficult. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street raised the question of the innkeeper who has no room himself and who goes elsewhere to find a room, but when he finds it they will not give it to him. Those questions might arise, but if accommodation is available, the innkeeper is expected to give it; if there is no accommodation, he cannot give it. If there is accommodation and he refuses to give it, one hon. Member asked what would be the penalties. They are all set out in Section 110 of the Act.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: It will be interesting if the hon. Member will read us those penalties.

Mr. COOPER: The hon. Member can procure the Act and look at it. It is set out perfectly plainly, and I cannot be expected to read out every Section of the Act, This Clause has worked well. There have been no complaints from innkeepers. Prices are arrived at in the natural way by consulting the retail prices set out from time to time in the "Labour Gazette," and I feel sure the Committee will agree that the system has worked satisfactorily, as in the past, nobody has raised any complaint. Nobody has suggested that any of their constituents have made a single complaint in this connection, and therefore I think it will be agreed that this procedure ought to continue.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: We cannot say that the hon. Member has given us anything like a convincing reply to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). The point made by the Financial Secretary was that if hon. Members on this side voted against Clause 3, the unfortunate innkeepers would have to billet the soldiers and would not receive anything for so doing. In that event I have no doubt the innkeepers would say "No pay, no billeting." The hon. Gentleman referred us to Section 110 of the Army Act, dealing with the question of offences by keepers of victualling houses, and he was asked if he would read the penalties outlined in that section. I find that
Section 109 also deals with offences in relation to billeting, and it does so more fully than Section 110. Section 109 reads:
If a constable commits ally of the offences following; that is to say:

(1) Billets any officer, soldier, or horse on any person not liable to billets without the consent of such person; or
(2) Receives, demands, or agrees for any money or reward whatsoever to excuse or relieve a person from being entered in a list as liable, or from his liability to billets, or from any part of such liability; or
(3) Billets or quarters on any person or premises, without the consent of such person or the occupier of such premises, any person or horse not entitled to be billeted; or
(4) Neglects or refuses after sufficient notice is given to give billets demanded for any officer, soldier, or horse entitled to be billeted;
he shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than forty shillings and not exceeding ten pounds.
Then Section 110 goes on to say:
If a keeper of a victualling house commits any of the offences following; that is to say,
(1) Refuses or neglects to receive any officer, soldier, or horse billeted upon him in pursuance of this Act, or to furnish such accommodation as is required by this Act; or "—

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. For the guidance of dm Committee, is it in accordance with the procedure of this House that an hon. Member should read out textually the whole of an Act of Parliament?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: On that point of Order. Is it not in order for an hon. Member to quote a, Section of an Act in order to enforce his argument?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have frequently heard hon. Members read Sections of Acts of Parliament, but I am not quite certain what relevance the Section just quoted has to this discussion.

Mr. HALL: The hon. Member the Financial Secretary to the War Office really threatened innkeepers or hon. Members on this side that in the event of this Clause being defeated it must mean that innkeepers would have to billet soldiers and officers without any remuneration, and when he was asked if he would read the Section dealing with penalties, he said he had no time to do it. I am doing it in the interests of the Committee and of the poor unfortunate
innkeepers who might find themselves in difficulties in the event of my hon. Friend defeating the Government on this Clause. Prior to the interruption, I was reading Section 110, Subsection (2) of which states:
(2) Gives or agrees to give any money or reward to a constable to excuse or relieve him from being entered in a list as liable, or from his liability to billets, or any part of such liability; or
(3) Gives or agrees to give to any officer or soldier billetted upon him in pursuance of this Act any money or reward in lieu of receiving an officer, soldier, or horse, or furnishing the said accommodation;
he shall on summary conviction, be liable to a fine of not less than forty shillings and not exceeding five pounds.
Those are the Sections dealing with the failure of innkeepers, whom a constable deems to have sufficient room for billeting soldiers, to provide such accommodation. With my hon. Friends, I would say that this Clause and the whole scheme of billeting soldiers is obsolete and should receive the consideration of the Army Council. One has only to look at Part III. In the first place, Section 102 relieves the owner of a private house, but the accommodation in public-houses or hotels is largely in populous areas, in such cities as London, or provincial cities like Bristol or Cardiff, or cities in industrial areas, and it is intended to billet troops very largely in the country. Well, these country inns very often have no more accommodation than have private houses. It is not that we complain that the owners of small private houses should be relieved of this obligation, but we cannot see why it is that some innkeepers with small public-houses or country inns should be made liable while the owners of small private houses are not liable.
Again, a very large number of inns, public houses and hotels in the country at present are really controlled by brewers. In my own district, owing to the falling off in the drinking of beer, the tenants who formerly managed these houses have had to give way, and now 80 per cent. of the public houses in South Wales which are controlled by brewers, instead of having tenants who would be regarded as innkeepers, are managed by managers who are liable to the brewers. To me, therefore, the question is as to whether it is the manager or the brewer who would be liable to be fined in the event of this part of the Act not being
carried out. Reading through the Army Act, one is bound to say that the Army Council has a preference for licensed houses. I do not know why. I am sure my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty will admit that as, far as the drinking habits of sailors are concerned, they have changed considerably since the War; and what applies to the Navy I feel sure applies to the Army in the same way, and possibly even more so. Reading through the list of the Army Act we find:
The provisions of this Part of the Act with respect to victualling houses shall extend to all inns or hotels whether licensed or otherwise,
and there is a whole list dealing with licensed houses where the constable, on receipt of a notice from the officer, could insist upon soldiers and officers being billeted. I cannot understand why canteens under the authority of the Secretary of State are exempt from these provisions.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member can go into details of other Sections of the Army Act which are not affected by this Clause.

Mr. HALL: I understood that Clause 3 covers the whole question of billeting and deals with premises and places apart from private houses.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No. It only deals with the question as to how much should be paid for billeting.

Mr. HALL: Far be it from me to attempt to get at cross-purposes with you, Captain Bourne, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) began the Debate, he dealt with the Schedule of prices under this Act, and at that time he was informed that he could not go into details regarding the Schedule of prices until we came to the Schedule. The only thing that he could deal with, I understood, was the question of the premises where these soldiers and officers should be billeted. I bow to your Ruling, but at the same time there are certain matters in Part III of the Act which deals with billeting to which I direct the attention of the Army Council.
The Financial Secretary referred to the fact that the accommodation of an officer must be four times that of a soldier. It is expected that an officer should have a
room to himself, and we do not complain of that. As he has a room to himself, it is expected that more should be paid for the billeting of an officer than to the billeting of a soldier, but why one officer is entitled to as much air space or room space as four soldiers is beyond me. In these democratic days when soldiers are on the march there is such a feeling of comradeship between the officers and the soldiers that I would ask that officers should share the hardships of the soldiers. If that is done there is a possibility of the Army Council economising on the billeting allowance for officers. I do not ask them to put four officers into one room, but I suggest that four soldiers to a room is too high. I am tempted to

ask whether the sanitary inspector of the district through which troops are marching are consulted on the question of overcrowding before some of these places are taken over for billeting. I ask that consideration be given to that aspect of the matter by the Army Council; if it is, perhaps next year this Clause will be passed without opposition.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES rose—

Mr. COOPER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 35.

Division No. 102.]
AYES
[5.33 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cooke, Douglas
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Cooper, A. Duff
Harris, Sir Percy


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cowan, D. M.
Hartland, George A,


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cranborne, Viscount
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Craven-Ellis, William
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Henderson, sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Holdsworth, Herbert


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cross, R. H.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Balfour, George (Hempstead)
Crossley, A. C.
Hopkinson, Austin


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Horsbrugh, Florence


Balniel, Lord
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Sauthport)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Beaumont, M. w. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Dickie, John P.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Doran, Edward
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Drewe, Cedric
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Bernays, Robert
Duckworth, George A. V.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Duggan, Hubert John
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Borodale, viscount
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Boulton, W. W.
Eden, Robert Anthony
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Knight, Holford


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Knox, Sir Alfred


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Elmley, Viscount
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Briant, Frank
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Broadbent, Colonel John
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lewis, Oswald


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Buchan, John
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Llewellin, Major John J.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Burghley, Lord
Fox, Sir Gifford
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Burnett, John George
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Ganzoni, Sir John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
McCorquodale, M. S.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Carver, Major William H.
Goff, Sir Park
McKie, John Hamilton


Castlereagh, Viscount
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gower, Sir Robert
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Cayzer, sir Charles (Chester, City)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Graves, Marjorie
Maitland, Adam


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Grimston, R. V.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Meller, Richard James


Christie, James Archibald
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Clarke, Frank
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hales, Harold K.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Conant, R. J. E.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Cook, Thomas A,
Hanbury, Cecil
Moreing, Adrian C.


Morgan, Robert H.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Remer, John R.
Strauss, Edward A.


Morrison, William Shephard
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Moss, Captain H. J.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Muirhead, Major A. J,
Ropner, Colonel L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Munro, Patrick
Ross, Ronald D.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Nall-Cain, Hon, Ronald
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Tate, Mavis Constance


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Nunn, William
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Thompson, Luke


Patrick, Colin M.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Peake, Captain Osbert
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Penny, Sir George
Savery, Samuel Servington
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Percy, Lord Eustace
Scone, Lord
Turton, Robert Hugh


Petherick, M.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Peto, sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Peto, Geoffrey K. (Wverh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wayland, Sir William A.


Pike, Cecil F.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Weymouth, Viscount


Potter, John
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams. Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Pybus, Percy John
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Womersley, Walter James


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Sotheron- Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton(S'v'noaks)


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Spencer, Captain Richard A.



Rathbone, Eleanor
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rea, Walter Russell
Spens, William Patrick
Sir Victor Warrender and Mr.


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
Blindell.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Banfield, John William
Hirst, George Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cove, William G.
Kirkwood, David
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 37.

Division No. 103.]
AYES
[5.43 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cooper, A. Duff


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cowan, D. M.


Albery, Irving James
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Buchan, John
Cranborne, Viscount


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Craven-Ellis, William


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Burghley, Lord
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Crookshank, Col.C. de Windt (Bootle)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Burnett, John George
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Atholl, Duchess of
Butt, Sir Alfred
Cross, R. H.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Crossley, A. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)


Balniel, Lord
Carver, Major William H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Beauchamp Sir Brograve Campbell
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dickie, John P.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Doran, Edward


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portem'th,C.)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Drewe, Cedric


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Duckworth, George A. V.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)
Duggan, Hubert John


Bernays, Robert
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington,N.)


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Eden, Robert Anthony


Blindell, James
Clarke, Frank
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Borodale, Viscount
Clarry, Reginald George
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Boulton, W. W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Elmley, Viscount


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Colfox, Major William Philip
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Conant, R. J. E.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cook, Thomas A.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)


Briant, Frank
Cooke, Douglas
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Ross, Ronald D.


Fox, Sir Gilford
MacAndrew, Capt. J, O. (Ayr)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
McCorquodale, M. S.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Ganzoni, Sir John
McKie, John Hamilton
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Goff, Sir Park
Maitland, Adam
Scone, Lord


Goodman, Colonel Albert W
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gower, Sir Robert
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Gretton, Colonel Ht. Hon. John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Meller, Richard James
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Grimston, R. V.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Hales, Harold K.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hanbury, Cecil
Morgan, Robert H.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Spens, William Patrick


Harris, Sir Percy
Morrison, William Shepherd
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Hartland, George A.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Munro, Patrick
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Strauss, Edward A.


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Strickland, Captain W. f.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Nunn, William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Holdsworth, Herbert
Patrick, Colin M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Horsbrugh, Florence
Peake, Captain Osbert
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Penny, Sir George
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Percy, Lord Eustace
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Petherick, M.
Thompson, Luke


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, sir Frederick Charles


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Pike, Cecil F.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Potter, John
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Pybus, Percy John
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Knight, Hollord
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Weymouth, Viscount


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsay, T. B W. (Western Isles)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Levy, Thomas
Rea, Walter Russell
Womersley, Walter James


Lewis, Oswald
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Llewellin, Major John J,
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Renter, John R.



Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Sir Victor Warrender and Dr. Morris-Jones.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas w.
McGovern, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Kirkwood, David
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

CLAUSE 4.—(Relations between Royal Air Force and Indian Air Force, and attachment of personnel.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.52 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Unlike my hon. Friends who have preceded me, I hope to be very brief in the remarks I have to make, but I am not sure that I shall be so breezy. I must pay a tribute to
the speeches in this Debate so far, which have been very much to the point—except for those of the hon. and gallant Member opposite. In all my 12 years' membership in this House I have never had a Minister treat me in that way before, and I will try to see that it is not done in the future. We have come now to the most important part of this Measure, because Clause 4 is the only Clause which is explained in the Memorandum on the Bill. Why the other Clauses were not explained I cannot say. If hon. Members will follow me for a moment, we will see what Clause 4 does. I should have thought it was the duty of the Under-Secretary of State for Air to explain this very important Clause to us. In fact, I think he ought to have done so at the beginning, because, as I shall be able to show, the Clause embodies a very important principle. The Memorandum states:
The Government of India have decided that steps shall be taken at once to commence the formation of the new Indian Air Force.
That appears under the heading "Clause 4," with which I am now dealing. Will the Under-Secretary for Air tell us how it comes about that the Government of India alone have decided in favour of this step? Where do our Government come in? I want to ask, "Is it within the competence of the Government of India to decide that steps shall be taken at once to commence the formation of a new Indian Air Force?" I should imagine, for those who understand anything about the problem, that is a real constitutional issue.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is a very important constitutional point, but this is not the occasion on which it arises.

Mr. DAVIES: I bow to your Ruling at once, Captain Bourne, because you know the Rules very much better than I do.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Is it not within the ambit of a discussion on Clause 4 for my hon. Friend to refer to the Memorandum? The Memorandum itself is headed, "Clause 4" and specifically indicates the scope of the Clause and the occasion which has given rise to its insertion in the Bill. I submit, therefore, with all respect, that what my hon.
Friend has said is strictly relevant to the Clause. Indeed, the Memorandum is concerned solely with Clause 4, and nothing else.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will read the Memorandum he will notice that the provision of the personnel of this force and its discipline is a matter for the Indian Legislature. All this Clause does is to deal with the relations of any air force in India with the Air Force of this country when the two may happen to be serving together. We cannot go into the motives which may have led the Government of India to create the force.

Mr. LAWSON: May I call attention to the fact that, so far as I know, no statement has been made in this House about the creation of this new Indian Air Force? We are discussing it now for the first time, and neither the Secretary of State for India nor anyone else representing the India Office is present. We must ask that someone should be here to represent the India Office, otherwise we shall be compelled to move to report Progress. As it seems that no move is to be made to secure the attendance of a representative of the India Office, I beg to move to report Progress.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot intervene in the speech of another hon. Member in order to move to report Progress. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) is in possession of the Committee.

Mr. DAVIES: I will consider very seriously the point raised by my hon. Friend as to whether we should not later move to report Progress, but I want first to make one or two very pertinent observations.

Mr. COCKS: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that the Clause speaks of
An air force raised in India,
are we we not entitled to ask what sort of an air force this is with which our own Air Force will have to associate? Is it the kind of air force with which our own Air Force will agree to associate? Are we not entitled to ask what, exactly, is meant by "an" air force?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Certainly not. Any question of that kind would have to be addressed to the Secretary of State for India.

Mr. DAVIES: The reply of the Chair has reinforced our demand, and between now and the conclusion of my very brief speech we shall have to consider what action we shall take. On second thoughts, I agree entirely with the point you made, Captain Bourne, on the point of Order that I raised on paragraph 1, but on the second paragraph of this Memorandum I think I shall be entitled to proceed to argue against the adoption of this Clause. Before I do that I would invite the Committee to note exactly what Clause 4 is. It differs from the Clauses with which we have dealt up to now. So far we have been dealing in the main with the Army, and have only mentioned the Air Force in passing, but this Clause is headed:
Amendments of the Air Force Act.
and, consequently, I suppose we must confine ourselves to that Act. It says:
184B. When a body of the regular, reserve, or auxiliary air force and a body of an air force raised in India are serving together under such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Air Council and the Governor-General of India, a member of either body shall, if it is so provided by the regulations, but subject to any exceptions or limitations specified therein, have the like powers of command over members of the other body as if he were a member of that body holding relative rank.
This is almost a proposal to amalgamate the two Air Forces; at any rate Regulations are to be prescribed, by the Air Council and the Government of India, as to how to deal with the two separate forces when they are called together either for battle or for peaceful purposes. The first question that I want to put to the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill is, what are the Regulations likely to be? That is a very proper question to put to him. Will the Regulations governing the two bodies be on the same basis as the present Regulations governing our own Air Force? There would be no reason for this Clause were it not for the fact that a branch of our Air Force will at some time go to India. What for, we cannot tell.
I do not know what the Government's apprehensions may be in regard to India. It is inconceivable that the new Air Force to be raised in India are likely to come to this country to work in conjunction with our own Air Force. I can, however, conceive the possibility of a rising in India, but I cannot conceive of a rising
in this country that would warrant an invitation to the new Air Force at Delhi to come over to London to subdue the British people with Indians manning the Indian Air Force. I am putting the case as clearly as possible. It requires a good deal of argument and analysis to find out exactly what the Clause means, and that is why I ask the hon. Gentleman what the Regulations are to be. Will they be based on the Regulations now in force in this country, governing our own Air Force, or will they be a combination of the Regulations existing in this country and those in operation in India governing the Air Force there?
It is pertinent to ask a further question: Does it mean that in future no section of our own Air Force will be called upon to go to India unless special circumstances demand it? If I understand the position rightly, Clause 4 means that the establishment of the new Air Force in India practically precludes the necessity, except in special circumstances, of any call being made on our own Air Force to go to India for operations. I am stating it properly when I put it that way. Now let me conic to a paragraph of the Memorandum which is also pertinent to the point which I am raising. Paragraph 2 of the Memorandum reads:
It is necessary, however, to make provision to regulate the relations between members of the new force and members of the Royal Air Force when units of the two forces are doing duty at the same station or are otherwise serving together, and also to make provision for the discipline of members of the Indian force when attached to the Royal Air Force.
How conies it about that our Air Force is called the "Royal Air Force"? If the great Imperialists, jingoes and junkers in this country, those royalists and monarchists love the word "royal" in connection with the Air Force, why do they preclude the word "royal" being attached to the Indian Air Force? Why should not the Indian Force be called the "Royal Indian Air Force"?

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): I do not think that this Clause gives any title, or can give any title, to the Indian Air Force.

Mr. DAVIES: I was only asking that in passing: it was not part of my main argument. Brushing that point entirely aside, I concede at once that the Indian Government must be master in its own
house. I am treading on very delicate ground when dealing with the problem of the use of the word "royal." I will leave it at that, because it is a very touchy problem. I will drop it at once. Having said that, let me come to what is the actual kernel of the problem. First of all a new Air Force is to be established in India. We are not allowed under the Clause to argue why our Air Force can take into its bosom the word "royal" and the Indian Air Force cannot. What we can argue on this Clause is the question of the Regulations that are to be established to deal with these two Air Forces when they meet together.
I have been a member of the Select Committee which inquired into the Rules of Procedure of this House, and I ought to know how far I can travel to the right or to the left. Knowing that, I am going to be very careful to keep myself in strict order. Let me come, therefore, to the two Air Forces when they meet. I am not allowed to argue why these two Forces should ever meet, or whether they should meet in India, across the Mediterranean, in England, China or Japan. All that I have to deal with here is the Regulations that are to govern these two Air Forces when they do meet. The problem will arise when they meet, if ever—but that they will meet is clear, otherwise the Government would not have included these provisions in the Bill. They will meet some day. Whether they will meet in combat I do not know. They will meet in friendship, I hope, and whenever they meet in friendship they will be faced with a set of Regulations under this Clause. The point, therefore, is that when the two Forces meet, what will be the Regulations that cover them?
For soldiers, the problem of religion is a very important matter. In connection with the Army, I gather, every entrant to the Army who does not state his religion automatically becomes a member of the Church of England. That is the case in our prisons and our mental institutions too, I believe. The first thing I want to ask the Under-Secretary for Air is, Will these Regulations provide that when a man does not declare that he is a Primitive Methodist, a Unitarian, a Wesleyan or a Congregationalist, a Roman Catholic, a Brahmin, a follower
of Confucius or a member of the Tao, he automatically becomes a member of the Church of England for the purposes of the regulations? I am keeping within the Rules of the House. Let me travel a little further. The third paragraph of the Memorandum reads:
Sub-section (1) deals with the first point on lines similar to those of Section 184A of the Air Force Act which governs the relations between air, naval and military forces when acting together, and Sub-sections (2) to (4) deal with the second point by making personnel attached to the Royal Air Force subject—as a general rule—to the Air Force Act when outside India.
The Committee will see that the first thing which Clause 4 does is to provide that Regulations are to be made to govern the two Air Forces when they meet. But, lo and behold! the third paragraph of the Memorandum explaining Clause 4 travels far beyond that. It implies that when one of the sections of the Air Force meet a battalion of our Army or a section of the British Navy, there must be, I imagine, Regulations, to provide for the amalgamation for the time being. A proper question to ask therefore is as to whether those Regulations will be printed in the English language. When a member of the Welsh nation joins the Air Force, will the Regulations be printed in Welsh for him? If a Scotsman cannot read the English language the Regulations ought to be printed in Gaelic as well. When the new Air Force is brought into being in India, the Regulations will be required to be printed in every dialect and language known to members of the Indian Air Force. Some of us who were bred and born in the principality of Wales have been offended on many occasions when English Regulations have been submitted to our boys, and they have not been able to understand what they meant. It is therefore very pertinent to ask in what language the regulations will be printed. I assume that they will be printed in the English language.

Mr. LOGAN: There ought to be a Royal Welsh Air Force.

Mr. DAVIES: Yes. There are the Royal Welsh Guards. That is aside from my main argument. I have explained the first part of Clause 4. Let me pass on to something that is quite as important. I have been as I have already stated in the House for 12 years and I have heard Debates on the Army Annual
Bill for 12 years' running. I will tell the hon. Gentleman who represents the War Office that we have usually had a whole day to discuss this Bill, yet after we had been talking on it to-day for three hours he moved the Closure on my Motion. We have sat all night on this Bill on previous occasions. I am pleased to understand straight away that the Air Ministry understand the etiquette of the House of Commons better than the War Office. It is more gentlemanly by far, they will not move the Closure on this Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that his observations on the Closure are not in order.

Mr. DAVIES: Sub-section (2) of Clause 4 says:
All officers belonging to an air force raised in India, when attached to or doing duty with any portion of the regular, reserve, or auxiliary air force outside India, subject, however, to such exceptions as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Air Council and the Governor-General of India.
The right hon. Gentleman representing the Air Ministry ought really to explain what that means. I thought I knew something about the English language; I have read as much as I could in my spare time; but I would like to know whether there is not one word "with" too many in the print. It appears tome that the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell us whether we should not cross out the first "with," or it may be that we should delete the second.
I should also like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what the Government apprehend in this connection. Do they apprehend that these joint forces will be called upon to go to Afghanistan, which, if my geography is not wrong, is not very far from India? Will they be called upon some day to go into Russia? I think that, when any Government come clown to the House with a Bill of this kind, making preparations such as are suggested in this Clause, we are entitled to ask what they think may occur to warrant these forces coming together to go outside India at all. Where can they go? India is a continent itself and there is ample room for two Air Forces in India, without their going outside. Are they going to Africa? It is pretty clear that they cannot go to America; I cannot see an Air Force going across the Pacific
or the Atlantic except as an experiment. But there is a definite plan somewhere at the back of the mind of the Government that something is going to occur in the East, which would warrant these two Forces coming together, and the Force raised in India joining with ours to go outside India is to do something for the British, Empire. I think, therefore, that my question is a very proper one to put to the right hon. Gentleman.
Then we are told that these regulations may be prescribed by the Air Council and the Governor-General of India. How often are they going to meet to do this work? India is a long way off. I forget the distance, but I am told that it is 6,000 miles. The Government will have to spend something on cables and wireless messages, on telephoning, and on couriers, for the purpose of sending messages; or will they send for the Governor-General to come here to deal with these regulations? He has been here before. It may be that this Bill is nothing but an after-thought to put into operation something in the way of regulations that the Government have already drawn up. The Clause becomes more interesting as we go on; indeed, it is packed full of meaning. I find, following the paragraph I have just read, another paragraph which reads:
Non-commissioned officers and men belonging to a force raised in India, when attached to, or otherwise acting as part of, or with, any portion of the regular, reserve, or auxiliary air force outside India, subject, however, to such exceptions as may he prescribed by regulations made by the Air Council and the Governor-General of India.
What are the exceptions that the Air Ministry have in mind? Is there this possible exception, that an officer might say: "I am not willing that the Air Force over which I have some control should go to Afghanistan, or Moscow, or China, or Japan"? Is that the exception? Can the regulations provide that a man who, say, has been brought into the Air Force in India, and who is a Brahmin, could say: "I will not serve on the same airship as members of the Church of England from England"? I would like to know what are the exceptions for which provision is made here. Then Subsection (3), at the bottom of the page, says:
This Section shall not apply to any officer, non-commissioned officer or man of
or belonging to any such force who is for the time being subject to this Act by virtue of paragraph (11) or paragraph (11A) of Section one hundred and seventy-five or paragraph (8A) or paragraph (8B) of Section one hundred and seventy-six of this Act.
I come back to where I started—

Mr. MORGAN JONES: On a point of Order. My hon. Friend has referred to paragraph (11A) of Section 175, but, on looking at the Act, I find no such paragraph (11A); nor is there, as far as I can discover, any paragraph (8B) in Section 176. I would like to know what our position is. The paragraph in the Bill is most misleading; there is no such reference obtainable.

The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member state what his point is?

Mr. JONES: You will observe, Sir Dennis, at the bottom of page 4 of the Bill, these words:
by virtue of paragraph (11) or paragraph (11A) of Section one hundred and seventy-five.
If you look at page 106 of the Air Force Act, you will find a paragraph (11) in Section 175, but no paragraph (11A).

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is scarcely doing himself justice. He had better read the Clause with which we are dealing at the moment. He will find there that it is proposed to insert such a paragraph.

Mr. JONES: The words are quite clear. I stand to be corrected, but I submit that I am not to be told to read a thing when I have already read it out to you. The Sub-section reads as follows:
This Section shall not apply to any officer, non-commissioned officer or man of or belonging to any such force who is for the time being subject to this Act by virtue of paragraph (11) or paragraph (11A) of Section one hundred and seventy-five or paragraph (8A) or paragraph (8B) of Section one hundred and seventy-six of this Act.
I look for paragraph (11A)—

The CHAIRMAN: I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman, but I can only do it in this way, and only if he will let me do it. I must tell him at once that the point which he is raising is not a point of Order at all. The hon. Gentleman appears to think that I have done him an injustice in suggesting that he should
read this Clause. May I point out to him what I mean? If he will go back to the earlier part of the Clause, and will read the beginning of Sub-section (2), he will see that by Sub-section (2) it is intended to add a paragraph (11A) after paragraph (11). That was the part that I wanted him to read. As to the question of a point of Order, I must rule that no point of Order is raised by what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he wishes to ascertain what is meant by the Clause, that is a matter for debate, and not a process of order.

Mr. DAVIES: We are getting the situation cleared up rapidly, and, needless to say, I am very much obliged to everyone who has made any interruption at all in order to clear the atmosphere. I will continue the brief remarks I was making, and will come to the paragraph marked (ii) on page 5 of the Bill, which reads:
Powers of command, when forces are serving together, shall, so far as provision in that behalf is made by Regulations under Section one hundred and eighty-four B of this Act, be determined by those Regulations.
This is, I think, the first time in the history of the Fighting Services that a Fighting Service in India and a section of a Fighting Service in this country have come together in such a way that we have to provide a new Clause in the Air Force Act to make regulations governing them. I should like to repeat the question that I put earlier. Will these regulations be based upon the principles governing our own regulations at home, or upon the regulations governing the Indian Air Force; or will the principles of both be combined in one when the two Forces meet? I think I have raised some very important questions on this Clause, and I am satisfied, in spite of anything that may be said to the contrary, that Clause 4 introduces a very important principle into the Bill. I know that I cannot raise the issue again as to who mooted this new Indian Air Force, but, had I been able to do so, it would have been very interesting to find what the Government had to say in reply.
I desire to protest against any regulations or any proposal that would increase Air Forces in any part of the world except for civil purposes, and I think it is right and proper to say that we on
this side of the Committee object to representatives of our Government going abroad to argue in favour of disarmament, attending disarmament conferences, and putting forward proposals, and then coming home and informing their Under-Secretary that he must come down to the House in order to increase the Air Forces throughout the Empire—because that is what it means. In spite of all that has been said up to this moment, I am satisfied that Clause 4 introduces a very dangerous principle into an Act of Parliament, and, for these reasons we shall without any hesitation vote against this Clause and against the whole Bill, not only as a protest against the Bill, but as a protest once again against the shabby treatment meted out to myself by the hon. Gentleman who now represents the War Office.

Mr. LAWSON: May I now, Sr Dennis, raise the point of Order which was raised when your predecessor was in the Chair? We are discussing here a very important decision in reference to Indian policy. The Government of India have decided that steps shall be taken to commence the formation of a new Indian Air Force. No statement has been made in the House as to the decision of the Government or as to the policy that is behind the creation of this new force, and yet to-night we have not a representative of the India Office present. I mentioned the matter nearly half an hour ago, and there has been no attempt by those on the Front Bench to get a representative of the India Office here. I ask leave to move to report Progress in order to give an opportunity for a representative of the India Office to attend And to explain this policy.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman, as far as I can gather, asks me whether he can move to report Progress in order to get here a representative of the India Office to answer certain questions in regard to Indian legislation, and not the legislation of this House. That is not administrative business or business for which the India Office is responsible. In the circumstances, I can scarcely see that I can accept a Motion to report Progress for such a reason as is asked.

Mr. LAWSON: I realise that it is no reflection upon the right hon. Gentleman who is here to 'answer for the Air Force,
but everyone who knows anything about Indian affairs knows that, when an important decision is taken with regard to the Indian, Army or the Indian Air Force, it is also 'a matter of fundamental policy. The memorandum clearly says that the Government of India have decided that steps shall be taken. We know nothing about the reasons why those steps are to be taken, and there is no one from the India Office to tell us. The right hon. Gentleman is a representative of the Air Force. He is not in a position to tell us the reasons which have induced the Government of India to set up the new force. It appears to me that it is a very grave reflection upon the Committee, And it is hardly treating the Opposition fairly.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman rose to a point of Order. Now he is arguing almost as if he were moving to adjourn. I have definitely come to the conclusion that, if he asks leave to move the Adjournment in order to obtain the presence of the Secretary of State for India or someone from the India Office, for the reasons given, then I must decline to accept that Motion.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Might we not ask that some statement shall be made either by the representative of the Air Force—

The CHAIRMAN: That is a, matter for debate in the ordinary way.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: A very vital question has arisen here between the India Office and the Air Department, and we are, surely, entitled to have some explanation. The Clause speaks of the Governor-General of India and the Secretary of State for Air being entitled to make certain regulations. On page 5 there is an Amendment to paragraph 4 of Section 190 of the Air Force Act, which defines the expression "officer":
After the words '(d) any officer of a Dominion Force' there shall be inserted the words, 'or of a force raised in India'.
This seems to mean that there is to be a junction effected between a section of the Air Force raised in India and a section of the Air Force in this country, and that these two sections joined together will operate according to regulations issued by the Secretary of State for Air jointly with the Governor-
General of India. Surely this is bringing a hew principle into what are called the Fighting Forces of the country. It is bringing partial control of a, colony or a dependency over the Fighting Forces of the country. I think a Motion to report Progress is a perfectly orderly Motion, and we ought to have the Secretary of State for India here to tell us what are the reasons which have led to this junction between the Air Force in India and the Air Force of this country and so enable us to discuss this part of the Bill with information derived from that source.

The CHAIRMAN: It is, of course, a very common thing for a Bill to refer to something which cannot be discussed in the Debate on the Bill, because the Bill does not effect that thing. This Bill is not effecting any of these things to which the hon. Member referred. Therefore I do not see, in the circumstances, how they are matters that can be debated or upon which he can insist upon a reply as a matter of order.

Mr. MACLEAN: It is not a matter of debating the items in the Bill. We are entitled to know the reason why these two forces are to be joined. We ought to know why certain things are likely to be done, such as the issuing of joint regulations by the Governor-General of India and the Secretary of State for India. It is the first time that a Service Bill has been brought before the House which has handed over to someone over whom the House has no control the issuing of regulations which are going to govern the operation of the Services that are paid for by the House. That is the vital question—handing over part of the control of the House to someone over whom the House has no control. He is to have a share in the issuing of regulations which are to lay down the methods to be pursued by part of the Air Force. If it were the Navy that we were discussing and control of the Navy were passing partly out of the control of the House, and if you, Sir, were sitting on these benches, with your knowledge of procedure, you would be the first to protest against such a violation of the rights of the House.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure that I need go so far as to say that what the
hon. Member has said is not in order, but I am going to make an appeal to him that, when he is supporting a point of Order to the Chair, he should not make any reference to what the particular occupant of the Chair might be doing if he were an Opposition Member on the back benches instead of being in his position of responsibility in the Chair. I am afraid I must keep to my opinion in spite of what the hon. Member has said, to which I have listened with the greatest possible attention. I cannot see that these are matters which are effected or carried out by the Bill. The hon. Member may differ from my decision—he says he does—but unfortunately for him, it is my decision and not his which counts. I must rule that these are not matters upon which I can accept a Motion to report Progress.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am very sorry to force the issue, but the point we have to bear in mind is that power is being given to someone over whom the House has no control to issue regulations governing part of the Air Force which we maintain and pass an annual Act in order to govern. It is something that is in the Bill, and it gives power to the Governor-General to assist in issuing regulations. It may not be in order technically, but it would at least be a nice gesture for the Government to make to have the Secretary of State for India here to give us some explanation as to what is being done.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has now made clearer to me what is his point, with the result that I can perhaps make clearer what my point is. So far as these regulations, which he is afraid of, are to be made, they are to be made jointly by a representative who is controlled by this House and another who is not. The person to whom the hon. Member should address his question is the representative of the Air Council who is here to answer and not to any representative of the Governor-General of India who is not here to answer.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: We desire to have a representative of the India Office here to guide us. So far we have failed to bring sufficient argument to bear to convince you, Sir, of the strength of our
case. You will find on page 5 of the Bill a reference to certain definitions, and you will find:
After the words '(d) any officer of a Dominion force,' there shall be inserted the words 'or of a force raised in India'.
The Section of the Act referred to there is the Section that defines the word "officer." If there were no change at all proposed in the definition of the word "officer," I should have no case for inviting the presence of the Secretary of State, but it is at this juncture in our history that the Air Ministry chooses to make a change in the definition of "officer" and to differentiate between an officer in India and an officer in the Dominions. That, in a way, is pre-judging the very important constitutional issue which we discussed last week, and we ought not to allow this change to take place without having the guidance of the Secretary of State for India to show us why it is to be made at the very time when Parliament is discussing whether or not certain constitutional changes should be made.

The CHAIRMAN: I am very sorry that I cannot follow the argument of the hon. Member, who in my opinion has made no case, whatever. I can only suggest to him that he should read the Clause again with more care. I do not think any question arises there of altering the general definition or meaning of the word "officer" at all.

Mr. COCKS: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) in the most interesting, fascinating, lucid and imaginative speech which he made, and which was the last speech delivered in this Debate, although it seems to have been delivered rather a long time ago. I agree with him that the Clause introduces a principle of great importance—I would say of momentous importance—and a principle which may affect the relations between ourselves and our great Empire. Apparently some mysterious Air Force is to be arranged in India. We know very little as to what this mysterious force is to be, but we are told that its personnel is to be Indian. It is not to be an English Air Force; it is to be an Indian Air Force. I do not know the purpose of the force. I might ask, but the reply, I am told, would be out of order. I do not know whether it
is to be utilised for the purpose of influencing Congress. I do not know whether it is to fit in any way into the proposals put before the Indian Conference by the Prime Minister as far as those proposals can be understood.

The CHAIRMAN: All these questions of which the hon. Member does not know the answer are out of order.

Mr. COCKS: I was only making a few observations before coming to the point. I thought that one was entitled to do that in this House. I have not the slightest idea of disputing your Ruling, but from close observations of the various speeches made by Members of this House, I sometimes think that they take perhaps longer than they need to reach the valid points. But leaving aside for the moment the things I do not know, I should like to point out, as I have stated, that the personnel of this mysterious force is to be Indian. The Clause to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee says:
When a body of the regular, reserve, or auxiliary air force and a body of an air force raised in India are serving together under such conditions as may be prescribed"—
I will not read the intervening words:
a member of either body"—
this is the point—
shall …have the like powers of command over members of the other body"—
the first body will have powers of command over the members of the second body—
as if he were a member of that body holding relative rank.
[Laughter.] I am extremely surprised that such hilarity should be shown upon a matter of such extreme importance. What does it mean? I want to be careful to explain that we on this side do not object to it, but it ought to be made clear that it means that a British airman who goes out to India may, in certain circumstances, be commanded by, and have to obey, the orders of natives of India. Those natives of India may have views on the subject of self-government, for example, which might offend the sensitive conscience of a British airman belonging to a Conservative, Liberal and National Labour party, if such a party remains.

The CHAIRMAN: The conscience of the Chairman is being offended by those views being brought forward by the hon. Member in this Debate.

Mr. COCKS: If it is a fact that in this Clause it is provided that in certain circumstances members of the British Air Force may be commanded by members of an Indian Air Force, I wish to congratulate the Government upon being so broad-minded on the subject of racial prejudice. I am glad that the National Government have abandoned the idea of the superiority of the white races, and particularly of the British race. Perhaps I have congratulated them too early. If one reads on, it says:
For the purposes of this section, the relative rank of members of different forces shall be such as may be provided by regulations.
That seems to put rather a different complexion on the whole thing. Under the regulations a member of the Indian Air Force of similar rank may be considered to be inferior in rank to a member of the Air Force. In other words, a flight-lieutenant belonging to the Royal Air Force in India may be considered superior to an Indian air-marshal. If the relative ranks are to be altered by regulation in that way, instead of being a matter of congratulation, it might be a tremendous insult to the Indian people. If a flight-lieutenant goes out to India, instead of his being commanded by a member of the Indian Air Force holding a higher rank, certain regulations may be made to the effect that an English flight-lieutenant is superior to an Indian air-marshal. It is a deplorable situation and ought to be looked into very carefully. I should like the Under-Secretary of State for Air to explain, if he can, exactly what this means. A very high constitutional point is involved affecting relations between ourselves and the people of the great sub-Continent of India. I should like to go on to other points, but I think that that point is sufficiently serious to demand all the powers of the Government to explain it away. It is a question of the utmost importance, and I press for an explanation.

6.55 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): It is very gratifying both to my hon. Friend and to myself to feel that this Bill, which usually is the subject of but cursory interest on
the part of the House, should, on this occasion, have been the focus of such an interesting and instructive discussion. It is particularly flattering to the Department which I represent that this Clause —the only Clause which affects us to any great degree in this Bill—should also have called forth the flights of oratory and imagination to which we have just listened. I am rather in a difficult position in that although many questions have been put to me during the course of the discussion, very few, if any, are in order, and therefore, much as I should like to reply to them, I find myself debarred from doing so. But there are some questions which are naturally of interest to the Committee and which it is only natural that Members should have put to me. Although I cannot go into the constitutional point which hon. Members alleged the new Clause raises, the Committee may like to have a few words of explanation with regard to the formation of the Indian Air Force. The policy of associating Indians more fully in the defence of their country was decided in 1930, and the formation of this Force is a step in that direction. The idea of forming a force which, at the same time, would be separate from the Indian Army and from the Royal Air Force in India—

Sir P. HARRIS: Are we allowed to discuss the formation of an Indian Force? Is not that a matter for the Indian Government?

The CHAIRMAN: I think that the right hon. Baronet is entitled to give an answer upon matters which come within his knowledge with which his Department has to deal.

Sir P. SASSOON: It was really only in the interests of the Committee that I was trying, in a few words, to describe of what the proposal consists and what assistance we are ready to give and are to give. It is primarily a matter for the Indian Government and for the India Office. As far as it affects the Air Ministry and the Royal Air Force, all that we are doing is to attach a few officers of the Indian Air Force for instructional purposes to Cranwell and a few of the personnel to one of our depots in India.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) raised several points
and said, "What is the meaning of this new Air Force of India? What is apprehended? Are they going to be sent to Russia? Are they going to be sent to Afghanistan? What is the meaning of it?" I would answer in a very short sentence and say, that nothing is apprehended and everything is apprehended. But surely there will be within the memory of all Members of the Committee the gallant part played by the Indian Army in the Great War in the trenches in France and Flanders. Therefore we cannot preclude in the future—we hope that we shall never have another war—if another war takes place, the possibility of units of the Indian Air Force, as well as ground forces, taking part. The hon. Member also pressed me to say on what principle the regulations will be based. In India the discipline will be subject to the Indian Air Force Act, and outside, except very close to the Border, they will be under the Air Force Act.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) asked me many questions, of which, he said, he did not know the answers. I cannot give him the answers because the Chairman has ruled them out of order. But he raised an important query as to the possibility of an Indian officer commanding British personnel. As at present arranged, the powers of command are only such as will enable the personnel of either the Indian Air Force or the British Air Force to perform duties such as guards and other things. In future what commands they will exercise will naturally be subject to the decisions of the Air Council and the Governor-General acting in conjunction, and it will depend as to how the Indian Air Force develops step by step, and how far it shows itself capable of using those greater responsibilities. I do not think that I can answer in any other way because that is really the existing situation. I hope, therefore, that I have fully satisfied all the inquiries which have been made, and that we may now have the Clause.

7 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for giving us his explanation, and for having taken such care in making that explanation. I submit that the subject under discussion has been raised quite seriously, and has an important bearing on our
relationship with India in respect to our Air Force. A few minutes ago I tried to put a point of Order on a matter of some substance, but I do not intend to pursue that subject. In this Bill, I am sorry, there is a proposal to add the words, "an Air Force raised in India." I regret that these words are introduced just now. You, Sir Dennis, did not agree with the point of view I took with regard to Section 190 of the Air Force Act. Looking again at that Section I am convinced that I was correct in saying that Subsection (4) does, in point of fact, define the word "officer."
My objection is to introducing these additional words at this particular date. If it had been done last year there would have been less objection, but just now the whole question of the relation of India to this country is, what I may call, sub judice. In the Indian mind, with which we are fairly well acquainted, and for which my party have tried to speak in this House, there is a vision of India being regarded as a Dominion, and having Dominion status. The introduction of these words in this Bill dashes that hope and will come as a ground of offence, because it implies that the force in India has already been prejudged by the Government as an Air Force not having Dominion status. I repeat that I am sorry the words have been introduced this year. If they had been postponed until next year there would have been less objection, because the Joint Select Committee would have arrived at a decision, and the Government would have introduced their proposals to the House of Commons. To introduce it this year is running the risk of conveying an impression that the Government have made up their mind finally as to the status of India in this matter. This is an unfortunate time to introduce such a phrase.
As to the purpose of this proposal, we are in entire agreement with the Government. We have always been in favour of the Indianisation of a section of the Indian Army. As far as these proposals go in that direction, we have no objection to them. The only difficulty we see is that the Indianised section of the Army will still remain subject to regulations imposed by the Secretary of State and the Governor-General, without relation to any legislative body that may be in India. I cannot quite understand the distinction
we have of the duty and the function of an officer, and that of a non-commissioned officer. On page 4 are the words to which I refer. Officers, I understand, are considered as
doing duty with any portion of the regular, reserve or auxiliary air force outside India.
Non-commissioned officers and men are deemed to be "attached," or to act as "part" of any such force. Why are officers not to be "part" of any such force, just as non-commissioned officers and men are? Beyond these minor criticisms, I have nothing further to say.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: It is rather unfortunate, I agree, that, as the hon. Member below me has said, these words should be inserted at this time. I noticed a little while ago that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) had come into the House. I feel sure, that when he is here, he will give us the benefit of his wonderful mind, as he always does when matter is as confused as this one appears to be. I do not feel at all sure what the purpose of this new force is to be, nor am I certain as to the position of these Indian officers and non-commissioned officers and men when they are serving outside India. Is the present a prudent time to bring this matter before the Committee? I ask that for the reasons which have been stated by the hon. Member below me and, in addition, I ask it because of the very grave suspicion which will be raised in the minds of many people in India as to the purpose for which this new Air Force is to be used.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting outside the scope of the Debate. We cannot discuss the employment of the Air Force.

Mr. McENTEE: I asked the Minister to explain what may happen when the new Air Force is formed and it became inter-mixed with the Air Force of this country. When these officers, non-commissioned officers and men are brought from India to this country they will fraternise with members of the Royal Air Force and other branches of the forces. For what purpose were they being trained? That question I notice was put down by an hon. Member who supports the National Government, and a, supplementary question came from one of the
back benches regarding Indianisation. The hon. Member who put the supplementary question asked whether Indianisation could not be deferred a little.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is out of order. It is quite true that the Minister referred to Indianisation, but this only provides for certain occasions when certain members of the different forces are acting together under regulations outside this Bill.

Mr. McENTEE: I was only referring to a matter to which reference had already been made. I was only using as an illustration the question asked and the supplementary question put. I do not intend to pursue the matter any further. For the reasons stated I think the time is unfortunate. We ought to know something of the nature of the regulations. Many of us are always very suspicious about giving to a Government Department power to make regulations, especially when no indication is given as to what the nature of the regulations will be. In this Bill the power is being given to somebody outside the jurisdiction of this House. We will have no right to criticise, and have no control whatever. Power is being given to make regulations governing the action of certain members of a force over which, presumably, we shall have no control whatever. This force will be almost entirely under the control of the Indian Government and the India Office. When these Indian officers and men come over here to any of the depots in this country, I suppose they will become subject, as are other officers from the Dominions, Colonies, and foreign countries, to the legislation recently passed. Over the money expended on them, or anything else, I suppose we shall have no control whatever. The whole matter is left in the hands of the Indian Government.
It is a great pity we have not present somebody from the India Office, although you, Sir Dennis, have ruled that it is not necessary that anybody representing that Office should be here. We have had a very limited explanation—nothing like a full one—from the Minister representing the Air Force. Many questions were raised by my hon. Friend sitting below me, and some of them did require an answer, and ought to have received one. Hon. Members, I hope, will vote against
this Clause. I have not an imagination strong enough to believe that our opposition will be successful, but, at any rate, we have an opportunity to protest against the action of the Government and the way in which they have handled the whole matter we have been discussing to-night.

Sir P. SASSOON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 40.

Division No. 104.]
AYES.
[7.15 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Doran, Edward
Liddall, Walter S.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Drewe, Cedric
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Albery, Irving James
Duckworth, George A. V.
Llewellin, Major John J.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Eastwood, John Francis
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Eden, Robert Anthony
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Aske, Sir Robert William
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Atkinson, Cyril
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McCorquodale, M. S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mckie, John Hamilton


Balniel, Lord
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fox, Sir Gifford
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Fremantle, Sir Francis
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Maitland, Adam


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Bernays, Robert
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Goff, Sir Park
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Blindell, James
Gower, Sir Robert
Meller, Richard James


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Boulton, W. W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mitcheson, G. G.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Grimston, R. V.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hales, Harold K.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Burghley, Lord
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Morrison, William Shephard


Burnett, John George
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Moss, Captain H. J.


Butler, Richard Austen
Hanbury, Cecil
Munro, Patrick


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Harris, Sir Percy
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hartland, George A.
Nunn, William


Carver, Major William H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
O'Connor, Terence James Patrick, Colin M.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Patrick, Colin M.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A.(Birm., W)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pearson, William G.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheirrsford)
Penny, Sir George


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Percy, Lord Eustace


Christie, James Archibald
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Clarke, Frank
Holdsworth, Herbert
Petherick, M.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hopkinson, Austin
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Peto, Geoffrey K.(Wverh'pt'n, Bilston)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hornby, Frank
Pike, Cecil F.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Potter, John


Conant, R. J. E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cooke, Douglas
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pybus, Percy John


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Copeland, Ida
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cowan, D. M.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cranborne, Viscount
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Ray, Sir William


Craven-Ellis, William
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rea, Walter Russell


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Ker, J. Campbell
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Remer, John R.


Crossley, A. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross, Ronald D.


Dickie, John P.
Levy, Thomas
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Donner, P. W.
Lewis, Oswald
Rothschild, James A. de


Runge, Norah Cecil
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Spens, William Patrick
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Savery, Samuel Servington
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Scone, Lord
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Weymouth, Viscount


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Stevenson, James
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Strauss, Edward A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Skelton, Archibald Noel
Sutcliffe, Harold
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Tate, Mavis Constance
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)



Somervell, Donald Bradley
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Mr. Womersley and Commander Southby.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Hirst, George Henry
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Owen, Major Goronwy


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William
Parkinson, John Allen


Cove, William G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Price, Gabriel


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Grundy, Thomas W.
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 39.

Division No. 105.]
AYES.
[7.25 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Castlereagh, Viscount
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. sir J.A.(Birm, W)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Albery, Irving James
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Fox, Sir Gilford


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Christie, James Archibald
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Clarke, Frank
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Clarry, Reginald George
Ganzoni, Sir John


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Clayton Dr. George C.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Atkinson, Cyril
Colfox, Major William Philip
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Conant, R. J. E.
Goff, Sir Park


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cook, Thomas A.
Gower, Sir Robert


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cooke, Douglas
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Balniel, Lord
Cooper, A. Duff
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Copeland, Ida
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Cowan, D. M.
Grimston, R. V.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th, C.)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Cranborne, Viscount
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Craven-Ellis, William
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Blindell, James
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hales, Harold K.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Cross, R. H.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Boulton, W. W.
Crossley, A. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hanbury, Cecil


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Curry, A. C.
Hanley, Dennis A.


Briant, Frank
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Harris, Sir Percy


Broadbent, Colonel John
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hartland, George A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dickie, John P.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Donner, P. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Doran, Edward
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Burghley, Lord
Drewe, Cedric
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Burnett, John George
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Butler, Richard Austen
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington,N.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Eastwood, John Francis
Holdsworth, Herbert


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Astorn)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hopkinson, Austin


Carver, Major William H.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hornby, Frank


Cassels, James Dale
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Horsbrugh, Florence


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Scone, Lord


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Hums, Sir George Hopwood
Morrison, William Shepherd
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Munro, Patrick
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Nail-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Nunn, William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
O'Connor, Terence James
Smithers, Waldron


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Owen, Major Goronwy
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Ker, J. Campbell
Pearson, William G.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Penny, Sir George
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Percy, Lord Eustace
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Petherick, M.
Spens, William Patrick


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylds)


Levy, Thomas
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Lewis, Oswald
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Liddall, Walter S.
Pike, Cecil F.
Stevenson, James


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Potter, John
Strauss, Edward A.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Pybus, Percy John
Summersby, Charles H.


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Tate, Mavis Constance


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Thomas, James p. L. (Hereford)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


McCorquodale, M. S.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Thorp, Linton Theodore


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ray, Sir William
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rea, Walter Russell
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Turton, Robert Hugh


McKie, John Hamilton
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Remer, John R.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Macmillan, Mauric Harold
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Maitland, Adam
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Weymouth, Viscount


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ross, Ronald D.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Rothschild, James A. de
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Meller, Richard James
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie(Banff)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Mitcheson, G. G.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)



Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Mr. Womersley and Commander Southby.


Moreing, Adrian C.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.



Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Savery, Samuel Servington



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Banfield, John William
Hirst, George Henry
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Parkinson, John Allan


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
John, William
Price, Gabriel


Cove, William G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Grundy, Thomas W.
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Section 76 of Army Act.)

The following proviso shall be added at the end of section seventy-six of the Army Act (which relates to the limit of original enlistment):—
Provided also that where a boy is enlisted before attaining the age of eighteen he shall be discharged upon a request to this effect being made by a parent or guardian if such request is made before the boy attains the age of eighteen and it is shown
that the boy enlisted without the consent of the parent or guardian.—[Mr. Lawson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Committee will recognise this as a proposal which has been made in the House for several years past, and a Clause which reappears continuously must
have some special reasons for its appearance. I have no doubt that hon. Members have received letters from time to time which reveal cases showing that the enlistment of boys under 18 years of age and the refusal to release them on the application of their parents creates very great hardship. The enlistment of boys under the age of 18 except for special classes is not legal. In a certain number of cases boys enlist at 17 years of age, sometimes under 17, but they are not a large number. The Financial Secretary told the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) that last year less than 400 boys were discharged and about 500 the year before. Very often boys under the age of 18 enlist in a hurry, owing to various causes; their parents do not know until they are informed, and very often the boy himself repents shortly afterwards; and then the parents naturally take steps to have him brought out of the Army. Parents think that if their boy is under the age of 18, which is the legal age, all they have to do is to apply for his release; and hon. Members will agree that very often a mother or father of such a boy is often puzzled to know why he cannot be released when there is proof that he is under 18 years of age. The Government have agreed to release all boys who are under the age of 17 years—

Mr. COOPER: On the application of their parents.

Mr. LAWSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will give us a more detailed explanation later on, but I have never been able to understand why the War Office wants to keep a boy who does not want to stop and whose parents do not want him to stop, if he is below the age of enlistment. The case put forward generally is that a good deal of money is spent on these boys and a lot of time and care taken to make them into soldiers, and that on the whole it would be a loss to the Army financially to countenance the enlistment and then the release of boys under the age of 18. There is not a great deal in that argument. I know that in the Army Estimates a certain sum is set aside for clothing and boots and training, but when you take into consideration that the number of these enlistments is only a few hundreds at the most out of 150,000 soldiers it cannot be proved that
the cost of their clothing and training and feeding is really a very important and large item. It would be difficult for the Financial Secretary to prove that this is a costly demand.
The other ground upon which this proposal was opposed, or at least was opposed a few years ago, was that there was not a great surplus of recruits. From that point of view there was a case some years after the War, but there is no such case now. At the present time the War Office can select their recruits, the military standard goes up every year. The Financial Secretary has told us the number of men who volunteered for enlistment and the number who were accepted, and when we pointed out that the percentage of refusals was rather shocking and was getting worse every year he informed us that the military standard had been raised. What was happening really was that the number of rejections have been increasing because the number applying for enlistment was larger and, therefore, the standard of physical fitness required much higher. If the number who offer themselves as recruits is increasing every year, and if the standard to be fulfilled is also rising, it makes it more difficult for the War Office to make out a good case for retaining boys under the age of 18 years, who have enlisted spontaneously and perhaps after some little trouble in the home. I ask the Financial Secretary to meet that point; and also the point of the cost. But from the point of view of the parents this is a real hardship.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. LAWSON: After that count I am prompted to remark that it is rather a pity recruits have not the same privilege of leaving as have Members of this Committee. There is not a Member of the Committee who has come in contact with this problem through individuals involved in it who does not feel that if she or he had a decision to give, a boy would be released. How does the matter affect the average working-class family? Even if a boy joins the Army with his parents' consent, it often means very great hardship for the parents. Parents bring up a family in which a boy, it may be the eldest, is the one on whom they depend to get work and to make some contribu-
tion towards the maintenance of the home. It may be that the father and mother have been looking forward anxiously to the day when that boy will help them to bring up the younger children. The average working-class parent to some extent looks upon the 18-years-old boy as a possible family earner. It is not worth while for the War Office to frustrate the hope of the parents that the eldest boy will make a contribution some day towards the family's maintenance.
The matter is becoming more acute now, because very often the 18-years-old boy can get work when his father cannot. Many firms, factories, collieries and shops say, "Too old at 40." As a matter of fact it has almost reached, "Too old at 20" nowadays. When the father loses his job the family have to look more and more to the eldest boy for help. The more distress there is in a district and the keener the competition for such work as is available, the more reason there is for the boy of 17 or 18 to remain at home, because there is more chance of his getting work. On economic grounds, on the ground of the changing circumstances of the time, all the arguments are increasingly in favour of the War Office giving special consideration to the matter. I know that the Bill states:
… it being requisite, for the retaining all the before-mentioned forces, and other persons subject to military law or to the Air Force Act, in their duty, that an exact discipline be observed and that persons belonging to the said forces who mutiny, or stir up sedition, or desert His Majesty's service, or are guilty of crimes and offences to the prejudice of good order and military or air force discipline, be brought to a more exemplary and speedy punishment than the usual forms of the law will allow.
It seems to me that 18 years of age is early enough for youth to be put inside the four corners of this super law. I am sure that there are Members of the Committee who could quote the cases of lads who have enlisted when under age. An hon. Friend has told me of a case in which patents have repeatedly applied for the release of a boy who enlisted at 17 and is not yet 18. They really need the help of that boy, but in writing letters to the War Office they feel as if they are dashing themselves against a stone wall. I am no milksop in these matters, but I do think it is desirable that the War Office and this House should see that
a youth is not called upon to submit himself to a body of law such as we find laid down in the Army Act, which in many cases involves severe penalties even in peace time, and in war time may include even the penalty of death. The Army is not pressed for recruits to-day. In fact the War Office are getting so many recruits, and men of such a calibre, that they are what one might call hand picked. The Army is becoming a select organisation on its physical and mental side; the men show the results of education in their bearing. But the great mass of the parents of these boys are working-class parents, and I hope that the War Office to-night is to give us a much more reasonable answer on this matter than we have had in the past.

Mr. PIKE: In 1929.

Mr. LAWSON: We are quite prepared to accept the results of our own shortcomings and sins, but during the past few years there has been a rush of recruits because unemployment has increased. The Conservative Government have one advantage, in that with increased unemployment they get an increased number of Army recruits. While we would not say that we were innocent in 1929, we do say that there is greater reason for this change now than there was then, regarding lads who have enlisted under age. Those who know the facts would not for a moment defend the retention in the Army of boys under 18 years of age.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: This new Clause is moved in a slightly different form from that in which a similar proposal has been presented on former occasions. The Financial Secretary, when a proposal of this kind was last made, pointed out one or two features which he said made it unacceptable but I think in its present form those objections have been met, because we make quite clear the position of the guardian or the parent of a boy who enlists under the age of 18 in reference to claiming release. Something definite ought to be done to deal with this difficulty and I hope that hon. Members will not resist our proposal merely on the ground that the Labour Government did not attempt to put this matter right. All Governments make mistakes and we accept the position that it ought to have been done before and that it has
not been done. It is no good however saying that because the Labour Government did not do so, the present Government with their big majority are not to put right what is obviously wrong in the present system.
The Financial Secretary on the last occasion among other grounds of objection to a proposal of this kind urged the ground of economy. I do not understand that objection because it is false economy to carry on as we are doing. I have figures which show that in 1923–24 the number of boys who were enlisted in the Army and later on were released on the ground that they were under age, was 793. In 1924–25 the number was 563; in 1928–29, 573; in 1929–30, 575; in 1930–31, 575; and last year 416. The recruiting officers seem to get boys to join without due regard to their real age. Later on representations are made to the War Office and I daresay pressure is brought to bear and these boys are released. All that must involve a great deal of trouble and expense. If we laid it down definitely that the age must be 18 and that proof of that age must be given to the recruiting officer, there could be no excuse afterwards. It ought to satisfy everybody and there would be fewer claims for release. Section 76 of the Army Act is not very clear. It provides that:
A person may be enlisted to serve His Majesty as a soldier of the regular forces for a period of twelve years or for such less period as may be from time to time fixed …:provided that the Army Council in special cases … may by order direct that where a boy is enlisted before attaining the age of eighteen the period of twelve years shall be reckoned from the day on which he attains the age of eighteen years.
That Section gives the recruiting sergeant the idea that he can recruit people under 18 because it leaves a loophole for the boy. It is not fair of the Army authorities to allow such loose wording in this Act of Parliament. Section 99 provides:
If a person knowingly makes a false answer to any question … he shall be liable on summary conviction to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any period not exceeding three months. If a person guilty of an offence under this Section has been attested as a soldier of the regular forces he shall be liable to be proceeded against before a court of summary jurisdiction or to be tried by court-martial for the offence.
Yet we have figures showing that every year between 400 and 500 get into the Army on false attestations. It is evident that the recruiting officers pay little regard to the age of a youth if he is well set up and physically fit. They may put the questions to the youth in such a way as to show that they want him to say that he is 18. If this Section of the Army Act were carried out drastically then every lad who said he was 18 and who is under 18 would be liable to these penalties. Yet we find about 500 every year who are allowed to get off. Under any other law in connection with the making of false attestations—such as the case of persons seeking unemployment benefit for instance—this leniency would not be shown. This wording of the Act has been carried on for many years, and there was probably a time when soldiers could not be got by any other means than by false declarations. But the time has come to put this matter on a proper basis. The Financial Secretary has told us that for the last two years he is getting recruits in abundance. Why should it be necessary in the Army Annual Act to continne to leave these loopholes to allow boys under 18 to get into the Army?
Every year when we raise this matter we are told that we ought to allow these people to go into the Army if they want to do so. We are told that a boy of 17 ought to know his own mind and the kind of occupation which he desires to follow. Of those who join the ranks, I should say 99 per cent. are from the working class. I do not suppose that 1 per cent. of those who join the ranks belong to what are called the upper classes. How many of those belonging to the "upper ten" have made up their minds at 17 or 18 what they are going to do? They are allowed to remain at college until they are 20 or 21, and their parents often decide the occupation which they shall follow. But among the working class we have these youths who, under stress of circumstances, leave their homes—in many cases owing to the straitened circumstances of the home, sometimes owing to pique—to join the Army. When a lad realises the position which he has got himself into, there is a great deal of difficulty and trouble for his parents in appealing for his release and the War Office is put to trouble and expense.
If this new Clause were adopted, it would be quite definite that the recruiting officer, if there was any doubt about a boy's age, would have to demand his birth certificate. There might have been difficulty about this 20 or 30 years ago, but to-day with a little effort the birth certificate can be obtained from Somerset House. Why should the Army authorities allow a continuance of the practice of letting boys under 18 get into the Army, trusting that there will not be any trouble afterwards? I hope hon. Members will realise that the time has come to put this matter right. The Army has been made an honourable profession. The payment is fairly decent, and I feel sure that sufficient recruits of 18 and upwards are available to fill all vacancies. We ought to remove the stigma of the suggestion that we bring in boys under 18 to fight our battles. It is not fair to them and it is not fair to their parents and it is not fair to this House of Commons that it should be allowed to continue. Therefore we press the Financial Secretary, as we have done for several years past, to give this matter consideration.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I desire to associate myself with this new Clause moved by the official Opposition. I cannot see any reason why the Government should oppose it, unless they desire to connive at what may be termed a form of fraudulent statement in connection with enlistments in His Majesty's service. It is not becoming of a Government in this country to encourage in any shape or form the making of false statements by boys who have not reached mature years. One can realise that in time of war, when a Government or a State is passing through what it regards as a national emergency, there is a disposition to wink at a great deal. But in times of peace when men, through poverty and desperation, are compelled to accept what is termed the Army shilling, who could defend a Government which stooped to assist boys of 16 and 17 enlisting in the forces under false declarations?
The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) raised one very important point. In these days it is comparatively easy to get birth certificates. Why should not the Government instruct the recruiting authorities to have the age of the applicant in all doubtful cases tested by
reference to his birth certificate? When I was aged 17 years and three days, having heard glorious tales of service in the Army and the Navy, I went from my appenticeship at the bench in Glasgow, because I had grown tired of a monotonous life and was craving for change, and endeavoured to enlist in the Army. Those were the days of my youth and indiscretion. At that time there had been a period of unemployment, that the number of recruits available was comparatively large and the military authorities told me that I must have my parents' consent. As I intended to run away from home and had run away from my work, I was in a difficulty about getting my parents' consent, and the recruiting sergeant said to me, "Are you sure you are not making a mistake in your age? Instead of being 17 years and three days, is it not 18 years and three days?" At that time I was rather truthful. I had not entered the House of Commons. I said that I was quite sure my age was only 17, and he looked at me. I suppose I did not know that they enlisted young fellows at so much a skull. He said, "I am sorry we cannot take you. Are you sure you cannot get your parents' consent?" I thought that not only could I not get their consent, but that I should get a very severe thrashing if I went home.
I was thrown back on going to the Naval Department, which was adjacent, and I enlisted in the Navy at 17 years and three days, because the age there was earlier. I discovered that the naval authorities at that time did not seem to be so loose in their methods as the Army authorities, because although it was a matter of five or six miles away from my birthplace, I was told that they must have the production of a certificate before they would accept me; and they not only did that, but they went to my employer to make sure that I had not been guilty of some fraud or something of that nature. They got a copy of my birth certificate, and only on the production of that certificate was I really enlisted in the Navy. I was despatched to Whitehall Place, and then to Chatham, and within 24 hours I had had three baths and one meal, and by six o'clock on the following evening I was very sorry that I had enlisted. I was a very clean recruit, but my stomach was rather empty, and I began to think the change was not a change for the better. I quite realise
that many boys enlist from a sense of romanticism, born of a desire to get away from the ordinary drudgery of life, but it is amazing to me that we should attempt to encourage boys of 16 or 17 to join without the consent of their parents.
I should have much preferred it if the Opposition had put down the age of 50 instead of 18, because I think nobody should be permitted to enlist under 50, and the men over 50 who make the wars should go and fight them. But I want to plead for the Amendment. I have come across one or two cases in my own division in this connection. One was that of a boy who enlisted at the age of 16 years and 8 months, and another at the age of 17 years and 3 months, and their parents came to me. I thought, being a recruit myself to the Parliamentary arena, that I had only to draw the attention of the colonel or the War Office to the cases, and that the boys would be immediately discharged on proving that they were not of the proper age. But when I began to write I discovered the same old stubborn type of colonels as we discover in the Tory party in this House, who have no reason, who have never learnt anything and never forgotten anything, and these colonels refused to budge on the question of the age of the boys.
I discovered one of these boys afterwards, and I said to him: "What made you enlist in the Army at the age of 16 yeans and 8 months?" I will give you exactly his words. He said: "Guid God, Johnnie, I had nae claes and nae boots, and I had either to get them by joining the Army or by stealing, and I decided to join the Army and get a suit of claes and a pair of boots." It is a great castigation of the present system that he was compelled to join the Army in order to get a decent suit and a decent pair of boots. We are prepared to give them these things on enlistment at 16 years and 8 months, but we refuse to give them to them when they are thrown on the scrap heap of the industrial army.
This is a reasonable Amendment, and I ask the Minister to give us some real reason for refusing to accept it. There is another aspect of the question that has not yet been touched upon in this Debate. I do not like to see boys of 18 and under becoming associated with grown men in the Army. I think boys of 16, 17, and 18
are usually demoralised by associating with a large number of people who have had a great experience of the world that is sometimes not very creditable. They live in association with men whose stories are not very nice, to put it bluntly, and I always think that when men are in association together, and are divorced from the refining influences of women and the home, then tend to stir up all the muddy waters that one can conceive of. Boys thrown into that environment are thrown into a degrading and immoral environment, and I think we should do nothing to encourage youths of that age to join the Forces.
Personally, I do not mind admitting that I am against working-class boys having any association at all with either Army or Navy, and I would discourage everyone that I come across from having any association with either Service, because I think, from association with the Navy—I say it in passing—there are in the Navy just as disgusting practices that one could be associated with in their youth as anything experienced in this country. I therefore ask the Government to give us real reasons for refusing to accept this new Clause. I ask if they are willing to connive at fraudulent statements of that kind that are made by boys; and if they retain them and refuse to discharge them, they are bound to accept in every way responsibility for the false statements that are made.

8.23 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: This is a subject which the House has discussed for many years, and I cannot help feeling that if the War Office really had its way, it would accept this new Clause in principle, at any rate. I have brought to the attention of various Secretaries of State a large number of these cases, and in practice, I think I can say, I do not think any one case has been refused. There have been many weeks of inquiry very often, but I have always found whoever was in charge sympathetic and anxious to get rid of these boys and to meet the wishes of their parents; and I believe that that is the experience of most Members of this House. The real question is, whether it should be in the Army Act as a provision or whether it should be an act of grace left in the hands of the Minister.
I understand that the case against making it part of the Army Act is that the State is put to considerable expense in feeding, housing, and training these lads, and therefore it is felt that they should not be encouraged, but that they should realise that when they go into the Army lightly, giving a false age, they will not be able to get out again too easily. On the other hand, the parents do come in, and I suggest that what is the general practice might very well be embodied in the Act. I do not think that any hon. Member can produce a hard case of refusal, but a parent does not always realise his right of approaching a Member of Parliament. Surely it would be fairer to the community as a whole if parents knew that they had a right to withdraw their boys provided reasonable grounds are put forward. It would make the matter much clearer and save the Minister a lot of responsibility in having to decide these cases, and it would make the law clear to everybody irrespective of their rights to approach a Member of Parliament.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: During the discussion on this matter last year no reply was given to a similar proposed new Clause. At this time of day it is a scandal for the British Empire to endeavour to build up its Fighting Forces by recruiting children of 16 and 17 years of age. I cannot see why we should not in the enlistment into the Army, Navy or Air Force bring into operation the same conditions that apply in civil life where a boy who is seeking employment has to produce his birth certificate in order to verify his age. There need not be the slightest difficulty in recruiting sergeants demanding birth certificates. It is not true, as the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) suggested, that it is easy to get these lads out of the Army. There are many cases of boys who have enlisted recently in which attempts to get them out of the Army have failed. I see no reason why they should be taken in for there is no shortage of recruits. Men are presenting themselves in large numbers and in many cases they are refused because the Army does not need them.
With all the talk that we hear in this House from Members on the Front Bench of the desire for disarmament and peace,
surely one of the first steps which the nation ought to take is to lay down regulations which will prevent infants joining the Forces. It is undoubtedly true that many of the 400 or 500 of these cases that occurred last year came from the homes of poor people and they joined through poverty and privation. In many cases also the boy enlisted through some little difference at home without full consideration of what he was doing. Is there any reason why the War Office should not make provision for enlistment in the Army on just as fair lines as enlistment into industry? If my boy wants to join industry at 14, he has to produce a birth certificate. Surely if at 18 he takes the responsibility of joining the Army, Navy or Air Force, his birth certificate ought to be demanded. It is a simple thing to produce it if the parents are willing or the boy is anxious to join. There is no argument that justifies the enlistment of youths under 18 years of age.
If there is the slightest sincerity behind the Cabinet or hon. Members who support them in preaching the gospel of peace and disarmament, there ought to be no hesitation in accepting this mild Clause. I have helped to get birth certificates for young men and women from the elementary, technical and secondary schools when they have gone to fill various positions, and therefore it is not suggesting anything drastic to say that the Army shall make young lads of 16 or 17 who want to join produce their birth certificates. I plead with the House to tell the world that we shall no longer depend on recruiting officers drawing into the Forces, in many cases by unfair methods, children of 16 years of age. If there is to be any fighting, let it be done by men of mature age. Let us give a lead to the world that we do mean what we say when we ask for world peace and disarmament.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. COOPER: As the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) said, in moving this proposed new Clause, this matter has been discussed very often in the House of Commons. He seemed to deduce from that, that because it has been raised so often year after year it must be a good Clause. With that I cannot agree. I have listened to many Debates on the subject, and I have read
even more Debates, and I remain as unconvinced to-night as I have been before. I have heard no new arguments in favour of it. Let us be frank about what we are discussing, because a great deal of misapprehension has arisen. We are not discussing disarmament, as the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) seemed to think, and any alterations in the rules for enlistment in this country as suggested in this proposed Clause would not be taken by foreign nations as an earnest of our sincerity in regard to disarmament. We are not discussing at what age a boy should join the Army. There is no disagreement upon that. It is the policy of the Army Council to enlist boys at the age of 18, and not under.
We are really discussing what penalties should apply to those who join the Army under false pretences, who make false attestations. It is the policy of the Army at this time, as laid down in the Regulations, that no boy shall be allowed to join under 18 years of age. It is impossible for a, recruiting sergeant to be certain of a boy's age. As we all know, the actual age of a boy or of a man is not really decided by the number of years he has lived in the world. We all know many men of the age of 60 with the vitality of a man of 40, and men of 40 who are really little more good than men of 60, and that difference is not less apparent, but equally apparent, in boys of between 17 and 18. Recruiting sergeants are instructed to select only those who appear to be 18, and if occasionally a, boy who is not 18 but is fully developed and looks 18, gets into the Army by making a false attestation, it is not my view, and it is not the view of the Army Council, that any great misfortune has befallen that boy or his family.

Mr. TINKER: Why not have a birth certificate?

Mr. COOPER: The hon. Member who has interrupted and who seconded this Amendment does not appear to have read it. He has said, "All we are asking is that you shall make certain by a birth certificate about the age of the boy." There is not a word about a birth certificate in the Amendment. If the new Clause were passed the situation would not be altered in the least,
because it would be equally easy for a boy to make a false attestation. Exactly the same problem would arise, only then, if he changed his mind later, he would be able to do exactly as he pleased. The question of a birth certificate is a different question. Even if this new Clause were passed no birth certificate would be required, and therefore all the eloquence we have had about birth certificates is really thrown away. Hon. Members should have included birth certificates in their new Clause if they thought it necessary for them to be produced.

Mr. TINKER: All right. We will try next year.

Mr. COOPER: I will tell the hon. Member now what I shall tell him next year, and that may persuade him not to put down an Amendment then, although I am afraid he will. We have always taken the view that it is undesirable to ask men of any age who join the Army for a birth certificate. There are many reasons why, on occasions, people are reluctant to bring forward a certificate. They do not know that it will probably be seen only by the recruiting sergeant. They think that possibly the information contained in the certificate will become known to their future comrades. Hon. Members can use their own imagination as to the reasons why men do not wish to produce birth certificates. It may be that they are illegitimate. It may be, on the other hand, that they have got into trouble in circumstances where it was not their own fault, that they have made a false start in life and want to begin again. They want to change their name and forget all that they have done; and no better opportunity exists for a man to make a fresh start in life than by joining the Army with a clean sheet and under a new name, whatever he may have done. To insist upon the production of a birth certificate would ruin the chances of such a man. That is the reason I shall give the hon. Member next year when he moves his Amendment with the object of requiring birth certificates.
There must be some limit to the age at which men can join the Army, and, if they do not like it, retire, but if this Amendment were passed then next year a similar one would probably be put down with the age of 19 instead of 18. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr.
McGovern) would bring forward an Amendment putting the age at 50; and, in fact, there is no end to changes which might be proposed on those lines. Therefore, if the Amendment were passed the matter would not be settled. I agree that if the proposal to demand a birth certificate were accepted the matter would be settled, but to my mind the solution would not be satisfactory. Hard cases do arise, and as the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has told us, any hard cases are fairly dealt with. We do not want to keep in the Army men who are unwilling soldiers, because they make bad soldiers, but, equally, we do not want to throw back on the labour market at this time men who would merely go to fill the ranks of that unfortunate army, the army of the unemployed. In cases of this kind, where a boy has joined under the age of 18, and it is desired to get him out of the Army, we insist that evidence shall be produced that he can get a job and a lasting job.
The argument about good recruiting and the state of unemployment cuts both ways. It is perfectly true that recruiting is better as unemployment is worse, but because unemployment is worse we are the more reluctant to release people unnecessarily from the Army in order to swell the crowd of the unemployed. Therefore, we insist that evidence shall be produced that there really is a good permanent job waiting for the boy. We insist, also, that it shall be shown that the situation of his parents is such that they really need his assistance. Occasionally cases come forward where it can be shown that a boy is receiving good pay in the Army—where, of course, he has no liabilities, every-thing being found for him, including good food and good housing—and is making no allowance to his people out of his pay, and if he goes back to the precarious life of the labour market we have no certainty that he will then be of any more assistance to his parents.
I definitely think that it is a very good thing for a boy to join the Army. I do not deplore it when a boy of 17 drifts into the Army owing, perhaps, to some hasty determination, because I think he has a better chance there than probably anywhere else. The hon. Member for Shettleston says that the association with the men in the Army is not the best that
young boys could have, because the stories and the language are not all that are entirely desirable. I am perfectly willing to grant that, but what is the alternative before most of these boys? It is not the life of the cloister, it is the life of the streets, where they meet similar men with less discipline and with just as bad language. The hon. Member gave us a very interesting chapter of autobiography about his own efforts to join the Army, and what he has told us about what occurred on that occasion redounds to the credit of our recruiting officers. They refused to accept him. Probably it was a misfortune both to the hon. Member and to the country. He has said that he feels that the influence of the House of Commons upon him has been wholly deleterious; just as he has gained some prominence in this House so he might have risen in the Army and eventually, perhaps, have drifted back here just one of those old colonels whom he describes as being incapable of learning anything or of forgetting anything.

Mr. MAXTON: Or he might have been shot by this time.

Mr. COOPER: It is obvious that the argument for granting perfect liberty to recruits to change their mind and to get out of the Army raises a very serious consideration. If this Clause were passed it would be open to a family to say to a boy of 16 or 17, "Times are bad, so go into the Army for a year. At any rate, you will get good food and be looked after, and it won't do you any harm, and if you don't like it and we find a job coming along for you, we have only to ask and we can get you out." I think that is a result which everybody would deplore. This Clause would also enable parents to take a boy out of the Army against his own desire. I think it right that a boy who wishes to join the Army should be allowed to join it even although his parents are against his doing so. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) who spoke of the penalties that are attached to the Bill would not want to increase those penalties, or to have them enforced. I do not know whether he noticed the figures which I gave in reply to a question this afternoon. Those figures show that during the last year there has been a remarkable decline in the number of cases
of recruits discharged from the Army for misstatement of age; 416, I think the figure was, as against 575. That decline is very largely due to the new attestation form that has only been in force for a year, and on which appears in large black letters:
You are hereby warned that if, after enlistment, it is found that you have given a wilfully false answer to any of the following eight questions, you will be liable to a punishment of two years' imprisonment with hard labour.
Then follow questions with regard to age, etc. That is carrying out the policy in regard to enlistment of boys of 18 years of age. When, owing to a misstatement, a boy under the age of 18 drifts into the Army, we retain to ourselves the right to say whether the penalty shall be enforced against him, and the maximum penalty that we ever impose is insisting that he shall remain, when, in the opinion of his commanding officer and of the people best qualified to judge, it is in his best interests that he should do so. In the circumstances, the Government cannot accept the new Clause.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. LUNN: It is the weakest possible argument of any Minister to say that, because a principle that is brought before the House has been refused before, he will also refuse it. That was the opening statement of the hon. Gentleman and that has been the only argument that he has used against the new Clause which is now before us. I do not think there is much in that idea, because if an hon. Member, a Minister or a Government cannot agree with circumstances and conditions, and see a case as it should be seen, and not in the light of what someone else has said before, I have not much hope or faith in them. The Minister is a danger in regard to another statement that he made. He said that he is in favour of reducing the age of personal consent of a boy, and he preferred that a boy should be able to give consent himself and to stand on his own feet, even at the age of 17. I cannot hope, in that case, that he will accept a new Clause of this kind.
The Debate has been quite interesting in view of a case that came to my notice yesterday morning. The father of a boy, who enlisted last September, and who was 17 years of age, came to my house to see
if his boy could be got out of the Army. His boy enlisted in the Duke of Wellington's Regiment, and is stationed -at Halifax. He was at home on leave this week-end. The boy wants to be out of the Army, and the father also wants him out of the Army. The boy enlisted because the death of his mother three months before December drove him to join the Army, but now he knows that there is a good home waiting and that he will be cared for, and he would like to get out of the Army because he has work to go to. He has a good job to go back to, and his father has been trying to get him out of the Army. I had the opportunity of seeing a letter from his commanding officer. It was very interesting to hear what was said by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), and by the Minister a minute or two ago, with regard to the way in which boys can get out of the Army. The people who came to see me have been trying for some time to get the boy out of the Army. The letter from the commanding officer showed that the boy was better off than he would be in employment. I think that it would be an advantage to the boy if he could go back to his occupation and become a craftsman rather than that he should stay in the Army and be comparatively useless. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] He would be of much more use as a craftsman, and I should disagree with anybody who contradicted that statement.

Mr. PIKE: Is a colonel or a general a craftsman?

Mr. LUNN: I should say that the boy will be much more useful in his own particular kind of work than in the kind of work that is required in the Army. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green said that he has never had any difficulty with the War Office in getting boys out of the Army, and that he has always been able to do it if they were under 18 years of age. He has always found the War Office very sympathetic. To-morrow morning I shall be in possession of all the facts relating to the case that I have mentioned, and I hope that I shall be able to get some consideration from the Financial Secretary to the War Office, after Question Time tomorrow, when I go to him on behalf of this boy, who is so anxious to be out of the Army and to be at home.
The question of a birth certificate is a very important one throughout life. You have to have a birth certificate when you attend school and when you commence work. I have seen scores of boys who have been anxious to go to work before they were of age to do so, and who have been sent back home when their birth certificate was brought forward. You have to have a birth certificate if you want to insure your life, because insurance companies are very particular, and they charge you more if you try to deceive them by saying you are younger than you are. You must have a birth certificate if you want to qualify for a widow's pension or an old age pension. The authorities are always very particular to know what is the age of a person who happens to die, and before they can get to Heaven, as one of my hon. Friends says. If this is the case in so many directions, why is it not the case in the Army? Why should the Army take these boys? I do not think that it is good for the Services to take these boys from their homes and from their mothers. No influence in the world is like that of a mother. The age of 17 is too young to take boys into the Army, and I do not see that there is any necessity to do so at this time.
I put a question to the Financial Secretary to the War Office a week or two ago, and he told me that nearly 50 per cent. of the recruits had been rejected last year on physical or other grounds. I should have thought, if we are anxious to get young men into the Army and if we are anxious for recruits, that they might have accepted some of these boys above the age of 18 years, rather than boys of 17, as they do to-day. It is not in accordance with the Regulations to accept them; the Minister has been quite clear about that. Why should there be any difficulty in the War Office accepting the proposal of the Clause? I appeal to the Financial Secretary. I know the futility of appealing to him after his statement, but I feel that this is a Clause that will have to be accepted by some Government, and I believe that it would be to the honour and glory of the Financial Secretary if he accepted it on this occasion and incorporated it into the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act.
These questions of the acceptance of boys into the Army, and the money that
we are going to sepnd on recruiting in one way and another, have been a very special feature of our discussion, although we know that the temper and the tone of the people are fur peace and for the abolition of all that makes for war. Believing, as I do, that this country ought to be in the van of progress in the direction of peace and disarmament, I would rather see the Government going ahead in the direction of reducing the numbers in the Services, as they are to-day, and lowering the standard of efficiency, as we call it. If we were determined that there should be no war, I have not the slightest doubt that this country could influence the world very much in that direction. At all events, whether there is to be an Army or war in the future or not, I see no reason why we should enlist young boys of 17, and I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to accept this proposed new Clause, which is put forward with the desire to carry out what most Members of the House would regard as a proper principle.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have great pleasure in supporting the proposed new Clause, and I think that, before I have finished, I shall get the Minister to accept it. My reason for thinking so is that the Financial Secretary to the War Office has always been very amenable to reason, as far as I am concerned, on this very subject. I have been very successful indeed with the War Office in getting boys of this description off, and none of those with whom I have dealt have been more sympathetic than the hon. Gentleman with whom we have to deal at the Treasury Box to-night.
The individuals who are going to be affected by this Clause are working-class boys, and I would ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office always to bear in mind the fact that we are appealing for working-class boys. If the War Office turns down the proposed new Clause at this juncture, it is bound to go out from the House of Commons to the homes from which they derive their Army that the Army to-day, the War Office to-day, and the Government of the day are depending on the simplicity of boys who, when they come to manhood, would not join the Army. There must be something wrong here. Is it going to be
said of this, the most powerful of all Governments of modern times—a Government with such a majority that they can put through anything they wish—that, in order to get recruits for their Army, they have to impose on the simplicity of the boyhood of the country? You cannot get men to join the Army. Even in the midst of unprecedented unemployment, there is difficulty in recruiting soldiers, particularly in Scotland. They cannot get Scotsmen to join the Scottish regiments.
The last speech that I heard the Financial Secretary to the War Office make in the House was one of the highest possible tone in favour of peace. One of the best speeches that have been delivered in favour of peace was delivered by the Financial Secretary to the War Office. It is to that same hon. Gentleman that we are appealing here to-night on behalf of inexperienced boys who have acted in the heat of the moment, or because of the love of adventure that is still in the breast of the youth. It ill becomes grown men, with a world of experience, to take advantage of those who have that love of adventure before they come to the age of discretion. While you would not give such a boy the vote, yet you ask him to go and fight for his country—the country that refuses to give him a right to vote.
The last case of this kind that I negotiated was about three weeks ago. I negotiated it locally; I did not require to go to the length of applying to the War Office. It was that of a lad from a decent, typical, working-class, artisan home. He had served three years of his time as an engineer, but he got suspended. He was not paid off in the usual fashion—cut off—but suspended. He took it very much to heart. He was a good boy, he had a good mother, he had been employed ever since he left school, and he had a horror of being thrown on the streets, like thousands of others whom he saw roaming aimless, with nothing to do, debarred from the right of improving themselves, of educating themselves, or of equipping themselves to be useful citizens. His horror of that was such that, without telling his mother, never mind his father, the next morning he ran off to Maryhill Barracks, in Clydebank, and enlisted.
He was 17 years old, but said he was over 18. He was a bonny Scottish boy, and would, without doubt, have made a good soldier. In order to get him off, I had to guarantee him a job, and that is a job and a half. I have seen the day when I would accuse the captain of putting that up to me because he knew I could not do it, but I have had a good many dealings with him, and I have no right to say unkind words about the officers as far as that is concerned. But I got the boy off.
When Members of Parliament get on to the Government Bench, they act differently from what they ever acted before. I am satisfied that, if the Financial Secretary were not the Financial Secretary, he would be supporting this new Clause. I do not say that idly. I have reasoned with him. When I have been arguing, as I have been with practically every man who sits on that bench before he was there, he was favourable to these reasonable demands that we make, but now, when we make them to Members of the Government, our demands become unreasonable. The Financial Secretary is treating this Clause as if it was a bloody revolution. Think what it is for a Member of Parliament to be approached by mothers to get their boys off. They have never been away from their mothers before. They have not been sent to Eton or Harrow. They have been with their mothers. It is a greater trial to a working-class mother to lose her boy than it is for the ruling-class mothers to lose their boys, for they never have them in the real sense of the term. Ruling-class mothers do not suckle their boys. They consider it beneath them. They hand it out to strangers. The word "mother" is the most sacred word on a working-class boy's tongue. These boys have never had any chance in life. They are robbed of all the rights that the boys of this country ought to have. Why do they go? The last boy I got off was suspended. He was going to be unemployed. He felt that he was being driven out.
In his last speech at that Box, when we were discussing these Estimates, the Financial Secretary pointed out that the spirit of peace was abroad in the land. It is no use paying lip service to peace. Here is an opportunity to prove that actions speak louder than words. Do not let it be said that, the older the boys
get, the less they will come to the Army —that they will have more sense. Do not let that idea get abroad, because that is the only reason that you are able to adduce. I ask the Financial Secretary to accept the Clause if he wants to get the business of the Committee carried on. If we have to hold the business up—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We will hold it up. We know how to do it constitutionally, and we will do it constitutionally.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had, perhaps, better not take me into his confidence.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It should be sufficient if the parent or guardian intimates that the boy, when he enlisted, was under 18 years of age, and the commanding officer should liberate him. Otherwise you are leaving it to the discretion of the officers, and it is very difficult to get a boy, if he is a good boy, out of the Army. It is not fair that working-class boys should be taken advantage of in this manner when they joined the Army in the heat of the moment without knowing the consequences and understanding what was involved in handing over their lives when they had never before been away from the parental roof. [Laughter.] Hon. Members are laughing because some of them have never known what it is to be under the parental roof. It is a joy which they have never had, or they would not laugh. A boy is taken away from his mother when inexperienced and is put into the hands of the drill sergeant to be drilled and disciplined and made into something which man was never intended to be—a fighting machine. Men in a responsible position claiming to represent the people should not take upon themselves to saddle the responsibilities of a soldier upon a man who is not able to understand what he is undertaking. These boys do not understand. It is in order to prevent the youth of the country making the mistakes which have been made by tens of thousands in the past, and to make it impossible for the recruiting sergeant to take them on before they are 18 years of age that I support the inclusion of the Clause.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I imagined, when my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was speaking, that there was some hope of the Minister getting up and saying, "Yes, I will
agree" because my hon. Friend said in plaintive tones that he had only to make an appeal and the Minister was bound to respond. I have been waiting most anxiously, but there has been no response as yet. I was really surprised to hear the Financial Secretary to the War Office make the remarkable statement that he could not see any objection to boys of 17 years of age joining the Army.

Mr. COOPER: That is not quite what I said. I said that if boys of 17 years of age wanted to join the Army, I did not think that it ought to be in the power of their parents to prevent them. It is not our policy to recruit them at that age to-day; we wait until they are 18 years of age.

Mr. LOGAN: It was mentioned a short time ago that there was no reference in the proposed Clause to birth certificates. Surely, if the hon. Gentleman is entitled to make reservations now, or to add to what he intended to say, we also have the right to say that birth certification is implied in the Clause which is now before the Committee. There is a common understanding with regard to age. The age is 18 years. There is nothing indefinite about it. Whether the boy looks that age or not, the question is surely not one to be determined by the sergeant-major, or the recruiting officer. Birth certification is the method of proving age unless someone who was present at birth is able to substantiate the age. We want something more than ordinary gossip. The hon. Gentleman said that there might be reasons why a certificate should not be produced. I agree that in regard to many lads the Army offers an opportunity of making a fresh start in life and of forgetting the past, but in cases of that kind the knowledge that the lad is desirous of getting away from undesirable conditions can be made known to a responsible officer. An honourable man in the Army would understand the position of a lad who came along and wished to leave the past and seek pastures new. The proposed new Clause does not deal with such cases. It would be as well to say what it really does mean. It says—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—I am glad hon. Members say, "Hear, hear!" It is a justification for reading it:
Provided also that where a boy is enlisted before attaining the age of eighteen he shall be discharged upon a request to this effect being made by a parent.
A parent should have some right in the disposition of the life of his child. If a boy has no parent alive, it is a different matter, but there, again, there may be guardians with a sacred trust imposed upon them by parents to take charge of the boy and see that he gets a proper chance in life. I believe in the family life, and I believe that a nation can never be great or glorious unless the parent has an absolute right to the custody of the child. When there is a statutory obligation, as in this case, then a parent has a special right in the eyes of the law. The law says "18 years" and does not say "looks like 18 years." The Minister said the recruiting sergeant is not too particular. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member denies that, perhaps he will say what the Minister did say.

Mr. DICKIE: The hon. Member is looking at me, but I made no interruption. The hon. Member was interrupted, but not by me.

Mr. LOGAN: The Minister said that the boy was enlisted if the recruiting sergeant, on looking at the boy, thought he appeared to be 18. He added that there were various cases where the certification of birth was not desirable. I agree in regard to the special cases he mentioned, and I think honourable men in the Army would certainly make exceptions in those cases. I am referring to the case where a boy under the age of 18 has enlisted without the consent of the parent or guardian. Even if all the House were in disagreement with our case, it would not affect its justice. What argument can be brought forward to justify maintaining a boy in the Army, if it can be proved he is not 18, when the law says he has no right to be recruited unless he is 18? If it is said the boy has made a false statement, it can also be said that the recruiting officer is acting immorally in only looking at the boy and not testing his age. [Interruption.] Most hon. Members seem to think this is the second house in a music hall, and, looking at both sides of the Committee, it does look like it, but I am at a loss to know on what side the clowns are. I would like the Minister to tell us what is wrong with the request we are making for the discharge of a boy under 18 when the law says he should not be recruited until he is 18? There is something wrong with a
system that allows a recruiting officer to accept a boy into the Army knowing he is not 18. I am referring to cases where one party knows he is not 18 and the other does not want to know definitely. In such cases, when the parent comes along and when the boy's future is at stake, there ought to be an opportunity for the boy to go back to his parents. The whole system is immoral.
The Minister to-night has not shown himself in his usual high standing. I honestly believe he is a fine Minister, and that we could not have a better Minister in his place. This is not sob-stuff, for I am not so sanguine as to expect to get this Clause passed. I ask the Minister to imagine the case of a boy of 16 years of age, whose parents have done their best to give him a chance, in life and who has just started out in the world. It does not matter from what home he comes if he has got the grit, for then the world is before him. He comes out into the world at 16 and after a while finds that everything is not as he would like it, and so he joins the Army. It is not asking the Minister too much to ask him to discharge the boy if his parents come along and are anxious to give him, a chance in life. There are plenty of others that could be found for the Army where they make men. They can tame lions and tigers there. I have heard that stated, and I have seen men they have tamed. When a boy, who has a chance in life joins the Army, under age, surely you do not want to keep him against his will. The parent has a right to demand to have that child back again, and there is no one, who can deny the right of the parent in that respect. When the Army are not able to prove that the child is of age, the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to the parent, and the child ought to be released. I do not believe that the child is the child of the State; the child is the child of the parent. [Laughter.] That statement may tickle the fancy of some hon. Members, but I am talking of legitimate cases. If laughter you will have, then it can only be from lack of understanding. I am speaking in the House of Commons where we are supposed to have a moral tone.
I want it to be understood that in my opinion the child, from the cradle to the grave, belongs to the father and the
mother and not to the State, and because I honestly believe that I say that the State has no right to refuse this Clause. I appeal to the Minister but not so hopefully as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton l3urghs (Mr. Kirkwood). I do, however, ask him to give us any legitimate reason, seeing that the age for entrance into the Army is 18, what objection there can be to releasing a boy under that age, if he has a home to go to and his parents desire his release. I hope the Minister will not pay much attention to the laughter that comes from the benches opposite, laughter which reminds me of the beating of a drum. The more empty the vessel the greater the sound. I ask the Minister to pay some attention to the reasoned speeches from these besches, to reconsider the Clause that we have put forward and to agree to it.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: I listened with full attention to what was said by the Minister, and I must confess to serious disappointment. I have had regard for some of his speeches but to-day he made some suggestions which I would ask him to reconsider. He said that we were not really considering the age of 18 but the making of a false attestation. We are not considering any such thing. We are considering the actual words in the Act, and the meaning of those words. Those words can only have one meaning, and that is that a boy shall be admitted into the Army and shall have the right to remain there of his own will if he is 18 years of age. That is what the Act says, and the Minister could give no real reason for any departure from those words. All that he could do, and he did it in a very bad way, was to make excuses for a breach of the Act. I cannot understand why in the case of anyone associated with the Army they should be permitted to break the law and the Minister should stand up in the House of Commons and tell us, with deliberation, that he not only intends to continue to break the law but to make excuses and endeavour to give reasons for the breaking of the law.
Parents have come to me asking me to get their boys out of the Army, because they were under 18, and in one case the boy himself asked me to help him. In almost all those cases there was not one reason given for asking for the
release of the boy that was not justifiable. I have not failed in one solitary instance to get a boy out of the Army, when he has joined under age. If the Financial Secretary was in my position, or in the position of any ordinary Member, and any constituent came to him with a plea such as that contained in the new Clause, he would immediately say to that parent "You have a moral right to have your boy released from the Army," and he would do his utmost to see that the will of the parent was given effect to. I think he will admit that that is so, and I think that every hon. Member will also agree on that point, but when a plea is made from these benches, in good faith, and we desire to see justice done and to see the law as it stands administered, we are subjected to a good deal of ridicule, not by the Minister but by hon. Members who appear to have little better to do than to ridicule people who are attempting to get the law administered as it is.
A man can buy himself out of the Army. I think the cost is about £35. [An HON. MEMBER: "£25."] In one case that I have in mind the man could not be discharged on the appeal that was made, but if he desired he could have been released by buying himself out, and my recollection is that the amount was £35. On moral grounds, on the ground of keeping the law, the Minister is prepared to say: "I will not discharge this boy, but, if he is prepared to pay £35"—or £25 if that be the amount—"I am prepared to discharge him." Surely; the House has some regard for morals, and when an Act of Parliament lays down specifically the age at which admittance into the Army is legal, they ought not be prepared to defend an immoral and illegal act. I cannot imagine that we are prepared to pay more attention to the question of a few pounds of money, which the Government does not need, than to the moral and legal aspect of the matter. That is a position which I should feel sorry that this or any Government should take up and accept as a position which should continue to exist.
The Financial Secretary has said definitely that at 17 years of age a boy ought to be allowed to remain in the Army even if his parents do not consent. If that is the feeling of those behind the Financial Secretary they should put it
into an Act of Parliament and not mislead the public or continue to do an immoral and illegal thing. Let them put it in the Act and say that 17 is the age at which they will enlist boys into the Army. On the other hand, as long as they maintain the Act in its present form they should be sufficiently interested in the law to administer it fairly. If a boy joins the Army under the age of 18, deliberately misleads the recruiting officer, and it can be proved afterwards that he is not 18 years, even with or without a birth certificate, to which the Financial Secretary attaches a good deal of importance, that lad ought to be released from the Army.
The Financial Secretary made a reference to parents which I was surprised to hear. I have an acquaintance and a personal knowledge of more working-class parents in this country than the hon. Member. I have lived among them all my life, and worked among them, I have been friends with them, and when the hon. Member says that a large number of working-class parents in these times says to their boys of 16 and 17 years of age, "Go into the Army for a few months and I will come along later and get you out just before you are 18," he is saying something which is not true. It is an insult to working-class parents and cannot be justified by evidence. I know of no working-class parents who would drive their boys into the Army for a few months so that they may get food; who would say to their boys, "You will get good food and education and experience in the Army, and I will come along and fetch you out before you are 18 years old." It is preposterous; it is untrue, and it is an insult to the parents of this country. The Financial Secretary said that the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) might have gone into the Army and come out as a colonel. I might have done so too. I joined the Army as a boy but, fortunately for me, I only remained in for approximately 24 hours. Had I remained in the Army, lived to the age I am now, and come out as a colonel, I should, at any rate, have looked the part better than the hon. Member for Shettleston.
The argument as to the cost of training assumes that the cost of training a man is more than the value of his services.
Nobody can justify that statement. If a man goes into the Army he is underpaid not overpaid, it does not compensate for the services he is giving during the time of his training. Compare a young lad in the Army with an ordinary apprentice in the workshop. Anyone who has had any experience knows that the employer has the advantage so far as the services of an apprentice are concerned. The same can be said of the lad during his training period in the Army. It is short; but he is rendering service all the time. I hope the Minister will come down from the immoral and illegal stand which he occupies at the moment of his own choice. It is not moral to break the law or justify a false declaration made by a lad under age. The Financial Secretary appeared to ridicule the production of a birth certificate; but it is being asked for by his own Department. Nobody can enter the Civil Service without the production of a birth certificate. The hon. Member appears to imagine that when a lad goes into the Army he is hiding the past and that it would be wrong to ask him for a birth certificate, but when he goes into the Civil Service he is asked to produce it. In fact, there is hardly any public service which you can enter without the production of a birth certificate. I hope he will accept the new Clause. The principle underlying it is good. It is a moral principle, and I am sure that if he accepts it many of his own followers, as well as Members on this side of the Committee, will agree that he is doing a good thing for the Army.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The whole Committee will have noticed with what earnestness my hon. Friends have advanced the case for this new Clause. We do attach real importance to the proposals of the Clause, and we are very anxious that the principle embodied in it shall be accepted by the Committee. Some hon. Gentlemen seem to have the impression that we are making much ado about nothing, and that in point of fact the number of boys involved is very small. If hon. Gentlemen will have the curiosity to look at the General Annual Report of the British Army they will be astonished to find what is the proportion of these boys to the total strength of the Army. The officers and men in the Army on 30th September, 1932, were 183,019. Of these no fewer
than 4,180 were boys under the age of 18. That represents a proportion of about 2.2 per cent., and it is not a small proportion. How are these boys distributed? A boy enlisted with his parents' consent, or accepted without his parents' consent so long as they do not object, is liable to be sent wherever his commanding-officer orders him to go.
Where are these boys actually employed? As to 3,111 they are with the home forces; 336 are overseas, except in India; and as many as 640 are in India. If hon. Gentlemen will have the further curiosity to see with what arms of the Service these boys are specially associated, they will find that the boys are associated with the Cavalry of the Line, 615 are in the Royal Artillery, 216 in the Royal Engineers, and substantial numbers of them are associated with those elements of the Army that are called upon to do the really difficult belligerent work. It is no use, therefore, arguing that if a boy gets into the Army because of his immaturity of age, he is likely to go into some more peaceful side of the Army's activities.

Mr. COOPER: Buglers and band boys.

Mr. JONES: We will take them too. Do you want all these hundreds of buglers in the Artillery? But let me grant the point of the Financial Secretary so as not to be unduly controversial. It does not affect my main argument. These boy s are taken into these branches of the Army. Let me present another figure that is not without significance. I hope I am not doing injustice to the Financial Secretary, but I think I heard him state that the number of boys released last year was 416, and 500 the year before. Here is art interesting fact: Since 1st October, 1923, the proportion of boys under 18 per 1,000 men has steadily remained at about 22, or 2 per cent. We are now in days when it is not difficult for the Army to get recruits. Adults can be obtained quite easily, and I do not see why adults should not perform as well as boys in the band or as trumpeters. The Army can get adults for the various branches of the Service. Therefore the case for not recruiting boys under 18 is doubly strong.
We have been told by the Financial Secretary that if these boys are enlisted and are then discharged on the appeal of their parents, that imposes on the War
Office a certain amount of expense. That is obvious. But I think the hon. Gentleman should have taken, in that regard, the merit of our Clause. He says that the proposed new Clause will make no difference at all, the age of recruitment being still 18. But the merit of our Clause surely is that if it were adopted by the War Office it would be a break upon any recruitment of boys without the authority of their parents, because if the parents once knew they had authority to withdraw them because of failure to comply with the Act, of course the Army would know that it would incur expense unnecessarily in accepting the boys. Our Clause would stiffen up the recruiting authorities against the recruitment of boys who might ultimately be a cost to them through their discharge two or three months later.
But we want to put the matter on a different plane. Toryism, Liberalism and Labour will agree that the pride of the Army is that it has always rested upon a voluntary basis, and that there is no conscription about it. Theoretically a person goes into the Army because he has said to himself, "I choose this as my profession." That is the basis on which people enter our Army, except when economic pressure is brought to bear on them and even in that case the principle applies to some extent. If that is the principle which applies, can we argue fairly that a boy of 17 is in a position to choose a career for himself? The hon. Gentleman opposite and I are fathers. Would he consent to a child of his own being free to determine his or her career at the age of 17? Of course not. The hon. Gentleman may say that he can see no objection to a boy of that age going into the Army, but, with all respect, I say that he would not dream of allowing a boy of his own to determine his career for 12 or 14 years ahead in this manner. I feel sure dm hon. Gentleman would insist on being consulted in the matter. We have noticed a controversy in connection with the son of one of our own Members. We all know that parents do take, as they ought to take, a lively interest in the destiny of their children and a boy of 17 is nothing but a child in these matters.
In what circumstances, generally speaking, does a boy of 17 choose this particular career? It is frequently the result of
some crisis in his own life. Perhaps some parental censure is imposed upon him rightly or wrongly and in a moment of pique and resentment he goes straight off to have his revenge, as he puts it, upon his parents, by joining the Army. In a moment of feeling and sentiment he determines his own future for a matter of 12 or 14 years. Such a, thing ought not to be contemplated. I recognise of course that there is a spirit of adventure in boys —a spirit of bravado if you like. A boy is attracted by fine clothes and shining buttons and handsome parade dress. It is very attractive, and it is designed for that purpose, but an attractive dress is not sufficient justification for determining one's career in this fashion 10 or 12 years in advance. I do not think that sufficient weight has been given to the point made by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern).
There is no need to attack the Army or to say unkind things about it as an institution. One may object to it as an institution, or as a career for oneself, but men go into it of their own free-will. Yet there is no denying that where thousands of men of adult age are gathered together, men who have had varied experiences in life—some of them creditable and some not so creditable—the conversation is not always of the most idealistic character and the talk is not always the most beneficial to a young person. That is not the atmosphere into which to throw a child of 17. When boys are sent long distances oversea, to India for example, as we are sending them now to the number of about 1,000 I suggest that this is a matter for consideration. It is not good to throw boys, or to allow them to throw themselves into an atmosphere which, without making any unkind references to the Army, may be described as less beneficial to them morally than most of us would desire.
Two years ago when I, with others, was trying to defend a Bill to raise the school age, I heard many Tory Members say, "What right have you to prevent a child going into industry? What right have you to retain them at school for the extra year?" Here to-day we are pleading that if a boy is under 18, and if his parent or guardian so insists, that boy shall be withheld from the Fighting Services of the Crown. It is not an
unfair or an exaggerated claim. It will do little if any harm to the efficiency of the Army and it may save many a boy from a great deal of temptation. I admit that there are temptations in the street, but the child who is at home has the environment of the home to counterbalance that evil influence. Once in the Army he is daily, hourly, nightly in the presence of thousands of men and there is the absence of home influence. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport seems inclined to controvert what I am saying.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): When the hon. Gentleman speaks of boys being in the presence of thousands of men daily and hourly and nightly I do honestly believe that he is exaggerating.

Mr. JONES: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion. I am not denying his right to it, but, I deny his right to challenge my right to my opinion. He or I or anybody else, if thrown into the company of thousands of men at the immature age of 17 would be thrown into an environment in which we would need great moral strength to stand up to the temptations involved. That is a proposition which is well-founded in experience. I would expect some support in this matter from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Over and over again those who belong to the Socialist movement have been twitted with the accusation that they are seeking to destroy the family and the home. That accusation is not well founded in fact or in theory. Here, anyhow, we are defending the claim of the parent that he should have a voice and a determining voice in the formation of his own child's decision concerning a career. Surely no one has a better claim than the parent. If our Clause is carried it may not make a big difference to the actual number detained in the Army. The Army would be making a very small concession. We attach great importance to the acceptance of the spirit of our new Clause, so that the Army authorities themselves shall not engage in the habit of recruiting boys of immature age. For that reason, I once again appeal to the hon. Gentleman to accept our new Clause.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I should be very loth to prolong unduly a Debate which has
lasted a considerable time to-day and which has taken place in this House a great many years. My only reason for rising is that I listened very carefully to the reasons put forward by the Financial Secretary to the War Office in resisting the new Clause moved by the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway, and I found them just as unsatisfactory as I have found the reasons given on previous occasions. One of the principal reasons is that the Clause does not include any reference to birth certificates. We are in Committee, and if there was any prospect of the Government accepting the new Clause, it would not be difficult to make the necessary adjustments in that respect, and I should not think the hon. Members above the Gangway are so wedded to the particular form of words on the Paper as to make any difficulties to that course being adopted.
But apart from the question of the form of words, the Minister took the view that there might be serious objections to people producing their birth certificates, that there might be something about the birth certificates of which they felt ashamed, that they did not want anybody but the sergeant, who would seem to be a sort of father-confessor, to see them. It was quite safe to trust the sergeant, but the sergeant-major, or the quartermaster, or the lieutenant, or the captain, or the colonel—it would not be right that their profane eyes should see a document that the sergeant could safely survey. I should not think there was any need for any secrecy in the Army about your birth certificate, and people who are sensitive about entries on their birth certificates have usually had to get over it long before they were 18, because it usually has to be produced on entry at school and, I believe, on leaving school, and it usually has to be produced in the registration at Employment Exchanges, and, if I remember rightly, everybody has to produce it when marrying. So why we should be sensitive about asking a man who is going to join the Army to do something that all of us have to do at some time or other, or on several occasions in the course of a normal lifetime is something that I cannot understand.
I was more than interested in the hon. Gentleman's further argument, which seemed to indicate that one of the great social values of the Army was that it
was a place of asylum for the escaping criminal or a sanctuary for the penitent sinner, where he got great opportunities for rising from the ashes of his dead self to re-make a blasted character. That seems to me rather a etherealised view of the British Army as we know it, and while I would not take the harsh view of my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) that it is merely one great congregation of sinners damned to eternal fire, whose practices and conversations are the last word in immorality, yet there is surely some middle view that is nearer the truth than the one suggested by the Financial Secretary, when he suggests that it is a great school of reform for people who have gone wrong. But the idea of the young sinner of 17 years of age, who has so sinned in the sight of society and in the sight of God that he must go into the Army for a. period ranging from seven to 12 years before he can re-establish himself in his place in the life of the community, is a very harsh view to take of our social order at the present time. Our Scottish poet Robert Burns pointed out
Though they may gang a kennin rang,
To step aside is human.
I think that in society generally human beings are not prepared to say that when a youth of 17 commits some fault it is necessary for him to hide his name and his birth certificate and to rush into the Army, take a false name, and work out his regeneration by a period of walking up and down a barrack yard and spending his leisure time in a canteen. It is a preposterous view for the War Office to take. I would very readily abolish the armed forces of the Crown in this country altogether. I believe that that would be a valuable step in forwarding the progress of the world. I recognise, however, that we have an Army just now and that the majority of the Members of the Committee wish to continue that Army, at least for a considerable period; but surely we do not need in times of peace, when the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are running all over Europe in an endeavour to secure disarmament by agreement among the nations, to press our boys into compulsory service whether the compulsion be due to poverty or to flying from the consequences of some misdeed, or to any other of the social pressures that might be brought to bear upon a young man.
Surely it is not necessary for Parliament to do what the Government ask it to do, to condone a lie. Last week we were discussing in the Scottish Grand Committee a private Member's Bill which was strongly supported by the Government, to make stringent penalties for the giving of false oaths. I ventured to say that a seven years' period of imprisonment for a person who made an untrue statement under oath was much too harsh a penalty when we consider what a big part lying plays in business affairs and even in political affairs. There was tremendous resentment in the Committee against the suggestion that we should in any way do anything to alter a sentence so that it might seem that we were condoning a lie, and the penalty of seven years' imprisonment was embodied in the Bill. Yet to-night the Financial Secretary tells us that the War Office find it expedient to permit a lying statement on the part of a boy joining the Army. In some respects joining the Army is very much like taking the oath in the witness box. The Financial Secretary laughs.

Mr. COOPER: I laughed because that is a travesty of the facts. It is the Opposition who are asking us to condone the action of a boy who gives a false statement and to subject him to no penalty whatever. If this new Clause were passed, no penalty at all would exist for a boy who gave a false age.

Mr. MACLEAN: Does the hon. Gentleman admit, then, that it is a penalty to be in the Army?

Mr. COOPER: It is necessary to hold the boy to his attestation.

Mr. MAXTON: The lie is told. The authorities know about it. They get to know. That is the issue in the new Clause. The authorities get to know, and the Government still say that the lie has not been told. That is the official view. The boy is 18, they say, because he said he was 18. Even supposing birth certificates are produced, the boy remains 18 in the register of the Army, and, indeed, remains 18 for the rest of his life. [Laughter.] Hon. Members are entitled to have a laugh over that. What I meant to say was that that age of 18 in the records is taken as governing that man's age throughout the length of his
life. I have repeatedly tried to get old age pensions for men who could produce their ordinary records of birth but they also produced their age on joining the Army. It was a false age that was given when joining the Army, but the Ministry of Health insist on taking that as the man's age.

Mr. COOPER: The man would get the pension earlier if they took the later age.

Mr. MAXTON: I am making a serious point—not only that the telling of that lie is condoned by the Government, but that it is accepted by all the Government Departments, not merely one, as being the truth in every aspect of the man's life. I am not saying that it is always to a man's disadvantage, nor, I think, would the hon. Gentleman claim that it was always to his disadvantage. The type of case I was referring to was that of an elderly man who told a lie to get into the Army when he was over-age during the War, and they accept that age as being his true age and insist on its being true. If that is not condoning a lie I do not know what is. But if there is some excuse for it in the case of a man of full adult status, there is no excuse for taking advantage of an inexperienced boy who rushes to join the Army in an impetuous moment. If we are to have an Army at all, let us have it composed of men who join of their own free will and who remain of their own free will, and see that they go there with the full knowledge of their parents, voluntarily and freely, and not because of some social pressure put upon them which the War Office feels it necessary to assist them to escape.
I can remember the Minister just before he became a War Office representative making one or two of the finest anti-war and peace speeches that have ever been made in this Chamber, and because I do not believe that his ideals are any different from what they were in those days I urge him not to allow himself to be diverted from the courses which he would regard as right because of any pressure from the Service members of the War Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) made some scathing remarks about colonels in this House, which were resented by one or two hon. Members with whom we would dislike to quarrel. It is not the
colonels in the House who are the really serious menace, but the generals over in Whitehall. I urge the Minister to face this problem as an individual and as a man who has not a mere interest in maintaining an Army but bass certain social ideals and some idea as to how he would like to see the young men of the nation grow up. I urge him to admit that this

new Clause, which he has resisted as it has been resisted by previous Ministers, is a. sound proposal for the protection of the young men of our nation.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 55; Noes, 262.

Division No. 106.]
AYES.
[10.31 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
McGovern, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Batey, Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George
Maxton, James


Brown, C. w. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Milner, Major James


Cape, Thomas
Holdsworth, Herbert
Nathan, Major H. L.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Cove, William G.
Janner, Barnett
Parkinson, John Allen


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Curry, A. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William



Groves, Thomas E.
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.


NOES.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Christie, James Archibald
Goff, Sir Park


Albery, Irving James
Clarke, Frank
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Clarry, Reginald George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Greene, William P. C.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Colfox, Major William Phillp
Grimston, R. V.


Astbury, Lieut. Com. Frederick Wolfe
Colman, N. C. D.
Gritten W. G. Howard


Atkinson, Cyril
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Conant, R. J. E.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cook, Thomas A.
Hales, Harold K.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cooke, Douglas
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Balniel, Lord
Cooper, A. Duff
Hanbury, Cecil


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hanley, Dennis A.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Craven-Ellis, William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Batsman, A. L.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hartington, Marquess of


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hartland, George A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th,C.)
Cross, R. H.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Crossley, A. C.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Bernays, Robert
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Dickie, John P.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Bossom, A. C.
Donner, P. W.
Hopkinson, Austin


Boulton, W. W.
Drewe, Cedric
Hornby, Frank


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W
Duckworth, George A. V.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Duggan, Hubert John
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington,N.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eastwood, John Francis
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Eden, Robert Anthony
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Brown. Brig. Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Newb'y)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Buchan, John
Elmley, Viscount
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Jennings, Roland


Burghley, Lord
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Ker, J. Campbell


Burnett, John George
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Knight, Holford


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Fox, Sir Gifford
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Carver, Major William H.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gibson, Charles Granville
Lewis, Oswald


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Liddall, Walter S.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Little, Graham, Sir Ernest


Llewellin, Major John J
Pike, Cecil F.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Potter, John
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Loder, Captain J. do Vere
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Soper, Richard


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Spencer, Captain Richard A,


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Spens, William Patrick


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


McKie, John Hamilton
Rankin, Robert
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ray, Sir William
Stevenson, James


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Rea, Walter Russell
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Strauss, Edward A.


Maitland, Adam
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Renter, John R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Meller, Richard James
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Merriman, Sir F, Boyd
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Mills, Major J. O. (New Forest)
Robinson, John Roland
Thompson, Luke


Mitcheson, G. G.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Ross, Ronald D.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Moreing, Adrian C.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornier)


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Morrison, William Shepherd
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Wells, Sydney Richard


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Weymouth, Viscount


Munro, Patrick
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Nail, Sir Joseph
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.I


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Nunn, William
Scone, Lord
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Womersley, Walter James


Patrick, Colin M.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Pearson, William G.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv.,Belfast)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'V'noaks)


Penny, Sir George
Skelton, Archibald Noel



Perkins, Walter R. D.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Petherick, M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Mr. Blindell and Commander Southby.


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.



Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Somervell, Donald Bradley

SCHEDULE.—(Prices in respect of billeting.)

10.43 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I beg to move, in page 6, line 4, to leave out the word "Tenpence" and to insert instead thereof the words "one shilling and sixpence."
By some strange mental aberration the Financial Secretary at an earlier stage to-day implied that we were under the impression that this was something new. I can assure him that he was entirely wrong. No one on these benches thinks any Member of the National Government

is capable of bringing any new proposal before the House at all. As a matter of fact, this Schedule is a most antiquated set of proposals and what we are asking is that it shall be brought up to date. Tenpence a night for a soldier's lodging in the third decade of the twentieth century is an astonishing proposal for a National Government to bring before the House. Nothing decent can be obtained under 1s. 6d.

Question put, "That the word 'Ten-pence' stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 44.

Division No. 107.]
AYES.
[10.44 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Burnett, John George


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Bernays. Robert
Cadogan, Hon. Edward


Albery, Irving James
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Caine, G. R. Hall-


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Bossom, A. C.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm


Aske, Sir Robert William
Boulton, W. W.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Carver, Major William H.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Castlereagh, Viscount


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Broadbent, Colonel John
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)


Bateman, A. L.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Christie, James Archibald


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Buchan, John
Clarke, Frank


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Clarry, Reginald George


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Burghley, Lord
Clayton, Dr. George C.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jennings, Roland
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Colman, N. C. D.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Conant, R. J. E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Cook, Thomas A.
Ker, J. Campbell
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cooke, Douglas
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Cooper, A. Duff
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Robinson, John Roland


Cranborne, Viscount
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Craven-Ellis, William
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ross, Ronald D.


Cross, R. H.
Lewis, Oswald
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Liddall, Walter S.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Little, Graham-, sir Ernest
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Curry, A. C.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Dickie, John P.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Donner, P. W.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Drewe, Cedric
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Duckworth, George A. V.
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Duggan, Hubert John
MacAndraw, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Scone, Lord


Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington,N.)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Eastwood, John Francis
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Eden, Robert Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Elmley, Viscount
McKie, John Hamilton
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Maitland, Adam
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Soper, Richard


Fox, Sir Gifford
Meller, Richard James
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitcheson, G. G.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Spens, William Patrick


Gibson, Charles Granville
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Goff, Sir Park
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Stevenson, James


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Morrison, William Shepherd
Strauss, Edward A.


Greene, William P. C.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Munro, Patrick
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Grimston, R. V.
Nail, Sir Joseph
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hales, Harold K.
Nunn, William
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hall, Capt, W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Thompson, Luke


Hanley, Dennis A.
Owen, Major Goronwy
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Patrick, Colin M.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hartington, Marquess of
Pearson, William G.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Hartland, George A.
Penny, Sir George
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Petherick, M.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Wells, Sydney Richard


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Pike, Cecil F.
Weymouth, Viscount


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Potter, John
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Holdsworth, Herbert
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hornby, Frank
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Womersley, Walter James


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rankin, Robert
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton(S'v'noaks)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ray, Sir William



James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rea, Walter Russell
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Janner, Barnett
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Mr. Blindell and Commander Southby.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Daggar, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Banfield, John William
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hicks, Ernest George


Batey, Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, George Henry


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Edwards, Charles
Jenkins, Sir William


Cape, Thomas
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
John, William


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Cove, William G.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Kirkwood, David




Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Maxton, James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lawson, John James
Milner, Major James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Leonard, William
Nathan, Major H. L.
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Logan, David Gilbert
Parkinson, John Allen
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Lunn, William
Price, Gabriel



McEntee, Valentine L.
Rathbone, Eleanor
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


McGovern, John
Thorns, William James
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph

Motion made, and Question put, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 42.

Division No. 108.]
AYES.
[10.53 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Eastwood, John Francis
Mac Andrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Elmley, Viscount
McCorquodale, M. S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McKie, John Hamilton


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Maclay, Hon Joseph Paton


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Balniel, Lord
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fox, Sir Gilford
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Fremantle, sir Francis
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Bateman, A. L.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Ganzoni, Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Gibson, Charles Granville
Mitcheson, G. G.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Glossop, C. W. H.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Bernays, Robert
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Goff, Sir Park
Moreing, Adrian C.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Greene, William P. C.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Blindell, James
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Munro, Patrick


Boulton, W. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nail, Sir Joseph


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hales, Harold K.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Nunn, William


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hanley, Dennis A.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Hartington, Marquess of
Owen, Major Goronwy


Burghley, Lord
Hartland, George A.
Patrick, Colin M.


Burnett, John George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Pearson, William G.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Petherick, M.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pike, Cecil F.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Holdsworth, Herbert
Potter, John


Carver, Major William H.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hornby, Frank
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney, N.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Clarke, Frank
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rankin, Robert


Colfox, Major William Philip
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ray, Sir William


Colman, N. C. D.
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Rea, Walter Russell


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Janner, Barnett
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Conant, R. J. E.
Jennings, Roland
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Cook, Thomas A.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Raid, James S. c (Stirling)


Cooke, Douglas
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cooper, A. Duff
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Remer, John R.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Ker, J. Campbell
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Cranborne, Viscount
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Craven-Ellis, William
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Robinson, John Roland


Cross, R. H.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ross, Ronald D.


Curry, A. C.
Lewis, Oswald
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Liddall, Walter S.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Dickie, John P.
Little, Graham., Sir Ernest
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Donner, P. W.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Drewe, Cedric
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Duckworth, George A. V.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Duggan, Hubert John
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Savery, Samuel Servington
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Scone, Lord
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Stevenson, James
Wells, Sydney Richard


Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Weymouth, Viscount


Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Strauss, Edward A.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv.,Belfast)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Skelton, Archibald Noel
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Smith-Carington, Neville w.
Sutcliffe, Harold
Womersley, Walter James


Somervell, Donald Bradley
Tate, Mavis Constance
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKanzie (Banff)


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Thompson, Luke
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Soper, Richard
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles



Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Thorp, Linton Theodore
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Sir George Penny and Commander Southby.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
McGovern. John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield, John William
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hicks, Ernest George
Nathan, Major H. L.


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Price, Gabriel


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawsort, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. John.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain, Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.